agentleFS
ArthurZakirovArthurZakirov/SystemSmith/skills/swe-method/SKILL.md

swe-method

Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Guide for working through a Jira story efficiently by separating context gathering, immutable evidence collection, codebase exploration, human-in-the-loop specification refinement, execution planning, and implementation. Use when turning a ticket into a reliable engineering workflow instead of jumping straight to code.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this workflow to work through a Jira story with enough context and validation to avoid speculative implementation.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the agent's question flow to extract one decision at a time and store the clarified specification in a spec file or spec folder.

    line 48
  3. Distinctive:

    Only after assumptions are validated should tests be written against those facts.

    line 67
  4. Distinctive:

    Use the observed shape to define a test case.

    line 72

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

SWE Method

Use this workflow to work through a Jira story with enough context and validation to avoid speculative implementation.

Step 1: Define Context

Bring together the resources you already know about up front.

Specification

  • Jira ticket ID

Additional Context Index

  • Slack thread URLs
  • Session IDs from AI-tool interactions
  • Meeting transcripts
  • Personal notes
  • Parent, related, and child tasks
  • Existing branches and PRs

Step 2: Fetch Data Into An Immutable Layer

Gather the source material you will reason from and keep it separate from interpretation so later steps are grounded in facts rather than memory.

Step 3: Explore Codebase And Systems

Based on the specification and additional context, inspect the real repositories, branches, PRs, APIs, schemas, CLIs, and surrounding systems that the work depends on.

Step 4: Human-In-The-Loop Specification Refinement

Rules:

  • The bigger the task, the harder it is to disambiguate everything up front.
  • The longer the autonomous run, the larger the divergence risk from the engineer's intended outcome.

Sizing guidance:

  • Tiny and repetitive tasks: the HIL step can often be skipped and decisions encoded in a skill.
  • Small tasks: do a lightweight HIL planning step, then automate implementation.
  • Larger tasks: break the work into smaller subtasks and refine each before execution.

Use the agent's question flow to extract one decision at a time and store the clarified specification in a spec file or spec folder.

Question types can include:

  • Requirements that depend on stakeholders or teammates
  • Design decisions the engineer can make or escalate

Step 5: Execution Plan

The specification is about what to build. The execution plan is about how to build it without hallucinating missing facts.

In brownfield systems, especially when databases, APIs, CLIs, or SDKs are involved, do not let the agent assume schemas or response shapes. Validate them first.

Execution plans may include HIL steps that expose the agent to:

  • Real API responses
  • Real DB schemas
  • Real CLI or SDK behavior

Only after assumptions are validated should tests be written against those facts.

Example execution plan for a class change:

  1. Query the API or DB the class depends on.
  2. Use the observed shape to define a test case.
  3. Implement until the test passes.
  4. Refactor and simplify.
  5. Update docs.

Step 6: Implementation

Two workable paradigms:

  • Implement a slice, run it end to end against the real system, troubleshoot until it behaves correctly, then add tests to lock it down.
  • Validate real external behavior first, then do TDD using tests grounded in factual responses rather than imagined ones.

Alternate implementation with cleanup so code quality and conventions are applied continuously rather than deferred to the end.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.