dead-feature-detector
Skill0 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub
Trace visible controls, routes, commands, and integrations to real handlers and observable effects to find placeholders or hardcoded demos. Use before declaring a product feature complete.
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- completion-claims-auditorSkill
- existing-work-preservationSkill
- mcp-reliability-auditorSkill
- multi-agent-integration-reviewerSkill
- project-context-recoverySkill
- requirement-traceability-auditorSkill
- scope-drift-guardSkill
- architecture-complexity-auditorSkill
- dependency-cycle-auditorSkill
- database-schema-reviewerSkill
- data-consistency-auditorSkill
- migration-safety-reviewerSkill
- loop-breakerSkill
- reproduction-builderSkill
- root-cause-debuggerSkill
- dependency-grounding-auditorSkill
- ci-failure-investigatorSkill
- cross-platform-readiness-auditorSkill
- environment-config-auditorSkill
- environment-parity-auditorSkill
- production-readiness-auditorSkill
- documentation-accuracy-auditorSkill
- token-efficient-workflowSkill
- accessibility-auditorSkill
- responsive-design-auditorSkill
- ux-state-completeness-auditorSkill
- release-verification-agentSkill
- agent-tool-trust-auditorSkill
- authentication-security-auditorSkill
- authorization-boundary-auditorSkill
- dependency-vulnerability-auditorSkill
- injection-risk-auditorSkill
- input-validation-auditorSkill
- secret-leakage-detectorSkill
- security-misconfiguration-auditorSkill
- api-contract-auditorSkill
- integration-reality-checkerSkill
- missing-test-detectorSkill
- regression-detectorSkill
- test-quality-auditorSkill
- ui-flow-verifierSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 20
Read applicable repository instructions before edits.
- Very specific: line 34
Search for TODO/placeholder/not-implemented branches, hardcoded success, demo-only data, no-op callbacks, and handlers that only log.
- Very specific: line 35
Check loading/error/permission branches so failure does not masquerade as success.
- Distinctive: line 37
Remove or clearly label intentionally unavailable controls rather than leaving deceptive affordances.
- Distinctive: line 38
Update the feature-status report from observed evidence only.
- Very specific: line 50
Never perform an external publish/payment/destructive action merely to prove a UI button is wired unless explicitly authorized.
- Distinctive: line 54
Every claimed complete visible action has a real handler and verified effect.
- Distinctive: line 55
No hidden hardcoded success or placeholder remains in claimed scope.
- Distinctive: line 67
If an external integration cannot be exercised, verify the local contract and mark the external effect unverified rather than simulating …
≈ “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.
Files
Purpose
Distinguish implemented features from convincing UI scaffolding.
When to activate
A visible feature, button, menu, route, integration, or demo is claimed working.
When not to activate
Explicitly labeled prototypes/placeholders are allowed by the current requirement.
Preconditions
- Read applicable repository instructions before edits.
- Preserve unrelated working-tree changes and establish a baseline when the workflow can modify code.
- Identify which tools and environments are actually available; do not claim unavailable checks ran.
Required inputs
- User-visible feature list or changed UI
- Routes/handlers/services
- Acceptance criteria
Workflow
- Enumerate visible actions in the changed/claimed scope and map each to its event/route handler.
- Trace each handler through business logic to a real observable effect: state, persistence, API call, navigation, file/artifact, or external action.
- Search for TODO/placeholder/not-implemented branches, hardcoded success, demo-only data, no-op callbacks, and handlers that only log.
- Check loading/error/permission branches so failure does not masquerade as success.
- Exercise the highest-value features end to end and verify the effect independently.
- Remove or clearly label intentionally unavailable controls rather than leaving deceptive affordances.
- Update the feature-status report from observed evidence only.
Relevant tools
Repository search, route graph, browser/API tests; this library includes a placeholder scanner helper.
Deterministic helper
For a dependency-free placeholder signal scan, run python scripts/scan_placeholders.py <root>. Every match requires contextual review and the end-to-end effect check in this workflow.
Safety restrictions
Never perform an external publish/payment/destructive action merely to prove a UI button is wired unless explicitly authorized.
Validation
- Every claimed complete visible action has a real handler and verified effect.
- No hidden hardcoded success or placeholder remains in claimed scope.
- Unavailable features are visibly/documentationally marked as such.
Expected output
- Feature-to-handler map
- Placeholder findings
- Executed effects
- Honest completion status
Failure handling
If an external integration cannot be exercised, verify the local contract and mark the external effect unverified rather than simulating success.
Completion criteria
The skill is complete only when every applicable validation item above has observed evidence or is explicitly marked not executed with the concrete blocker. Do not replace missing evidence with confidence language.
Research mapping
This skill was selected from research problems: P039, P044. See research/vibe-coding-problems.md and research/problem-evidence.csv in the Vibe Coding Skills repository.
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
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.

