agentleFS
aradmanamnaoonaradmanamnaoon/vibe-coding-skills/skills/frontend/dead-feature-detector/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read applicable repository instructions before edits.

    line 20
  2. Very specific:

    Search for TODO/placeholder/not-implemented branches, hardcoded success, demo-only data, no-op callbacks, and handlers that only log.

    line 34
  3. Very specific:

    Check loading/error/permission branches so failure does not masquerade as success.

    line 35
  4. Distinctive:

    Remove or clearly label intentionally unavailable controls rather than leaving deceptive affordances.

    line 37
  5. Distinctive:

    Update the feature-status report from observed evidence only.

    line 38
  6. Very specific:

    Never perform an external publish/payment/destructive action merely to prove a UI button is wired unless explicitly authorized.

    line 50
  7. Distinctive:

    Every claimed complete visible action has a real handler and verified effect.

    line 54
  8. Distinctive:

    No hidden hardcoded success or placeholder remains in claimed scope.

    line 55
  9. Distinctive:

    If an external integration cannot be exercised, verify the local contract and mark the external effect unverified rather than simulating …

    line 67

≈ “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

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

  1. Enumerate visible actions in the changed/claimed scope and map each to its event/route handler.
  2. Trace each handler through business logic to a real observable effect: state, persistence, API call, navigation, file/artifact, or external action.
  3. Search for TODO/placeholder/not-implemented branches, hardcoded success, demo-only data, no-op callbacks, and handlers that only log.
  4. Check loading/error/permission branches so failure does not masquerade as success.
  5. Exercise the highest-value features end to end and verify the effect independently.
  6. Remove or clearly label intentionally unavailable controls rather than leaving deceptive affordances.
  7. 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.

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.