Ten simple rules for executing an inherited research plan in computational biology

Trainees in computational biology frequently inherit research plans whose aims, datasets, analytical strategies, and technical constraints were defined before their arrival. These plans often emerge from grants, collaborations, legacy codebases, shared high-performance computing environments, or partially completed analyses. While such plans provide a useful scaffold, they rarely specify all implementation details, prior assumptions, evaluation criteria, or dependencies needed for reliable execution. The transition from inheriting a partially articulated plan to producing reproducible results therefore creates an execution gap: a phase in which trainees must reconstruct what the project is, which elements are fixed, which remain negotiable, and which technical or organizational assumptions need to be tested before full-scale analysis begins. In this Ten Simple Rules article, we provide a practice-oriented framework for stabilizing inherited computational biology projects before workflows, benchmarks, and decision paths become entrenched. We do not claim that the individual practices described here are novel in isolation. Rather, our contribution is to organize familiar practices into a sequenced framework for a recurrent but under-articulated phase of computational research: inherited-plan execution. Computational biology makes this phase especially important because projects often combine heterogeneous datasets, fragile software environments, undocumented preprocessing choices, benchmarking assumptions, distributed collaborators, and asymmetrical access to contextual knowledge. By making this transition visible and operational, the rules aim to help trainees, supervisors, and collaborators reduce ambiguity, test feasibility, document decisions, and support reproducible and equitable project execution under real-world constraints.