agentleFS
TIKAZITIKAZI/TIKAZ-Codex-Engineering/SKILL.md

engineering

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Orchestrate production software delivery through specification, repository intelligence, implementation, testing, security review, data operations, and release evidence. Use for substantial code changes that cross files, systems, or deployment boundaries.

10 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use testing.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • NVIDIASkill

    testing

    Run Python and Rust tests for physicsnemo-curator using uv + pytest with coverage reporting via pytest-cov, and cargo-nextest for Rust tests. Includes benchmark workflows with pytest-benchmark and criterion.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use code-intelligence to map architecture and impact before editing unfamiliar or cross-cutting code.

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    Use engineering-delivery as the lifecycle owner: plan small slices, implement, test, review, and report.

    line 18
  3. Very specific:

    Run skill-security-audit before importing unfamiliar executable skills or dependencies.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep an evidence ledger: commands, results, artifacts, regressions checked, and remaining risk.

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    Read references/routing.md and references/output-contract.md.

    line 41

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Engineering

Designed, integrated, refactored, and continuously maintained by TIKAZ.

Inputs and routing

Accept a repository, requested change, constraints, risk boundary, and expected evidence. Use the orchestrator for cross-file or release-bound work; use a child Skill directly when architecture mapping, delivery, security audit, Supabase operations, or media-pipeline engineering is the whole outcome.

TIKAZ method

  1. Freeze scope, non-goals, acceptance criteria, and evidence required for completion.
  2. Use code-intelligence to map architecture and impact before editing unfamiliar or cross-cutting code.
  3. Use engineering-delivery as the lifecycle owner: plan small slices, implement, test, review, and report.
  4. Route only domain-specific work to supabase-operations or video-workbench.
  5. Run skill-security-audit before importing unfamiliar executable skills or dependencies.
  6. Keep an evidence ledger: commands, results, artifacts, regressions checked, and remaining risk.

Conflict rule

code-intelligence advises; engineering-delivery executes. Domain adapters cannot expand scope without explicit acceptance criteria.

Completion gate

Require repository-native validation, final diff review, no leaked secrets, an explicit release/rollback note when applicable, and objective evidence for every acceptance criterion.

Output, fallback, and limits

Return the agreed scope, impact map, implementation record, verification evidence, rollback note, and remaining risks. If repository-native commands or required credentials are unavailable, stop at the last verified artifact and state the missing capability. Do not deploy, migrate production data, or perform destructive actions without explicit authority.

Example

Use engineering to map this API change, implement it in small verified slices, review the final diff, and provide rollback evidence.

Read references/routing.md and references/output-contract.md.

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.