implementation-workflow
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Implement cohesive, non-trivial features and behavior changes through design, implementation, verification, and independent review, using a living Implementation Note. Use when the work involves non-obvious design, multiple interacting components or behaviors, meaningful regression or integration risk, or benefits from a structured workflow and independent review.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Lixiuxiu559/AgentForgetheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- DONGHO5270/mcp-management-systemtheir own version, first seen Feb 13, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- Lixiuxiu559/AgentForge★ 4same name
- DONGHO5270/mcp-management-system★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- build-incrementalSkill
- code-simplifySkill
- create-or-clone-repositorySkill
- design-firstSkill
- manage-git-worktreesSkill
- plan-driven-developmentSkill
- setup-wiki-backed-project-skillsSkill
- subagent-supervisionSkill
- task-briefSkill
- test-driven-debugSkill
- tidy-firstSkill
- write-personal-wikiSkill
- write-project-wikiSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
26 rules. About 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈19
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Use this workflow for a cohesive feature implementation or behavior change when it involves one or more of:
- Distinctive: line 19
When an ExecPlan exists, apply this workflow within each relevant feature or behavior-change task rather than replacing the ExecPlan.
- Very specific: line 37
Create .agent-work/implementation/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{short-task-name}.md with a descriptive kebab-case task name using the template below.
- Very specific: line 39
If creating .agent-work/, create .agent-work/.gitignore containing only *.
- Distinctive: line 41
Update the Implementation Note: Task Definition and Progress.
- Very specific: line 49
Follow $design-first to inspect repository evidence and finalize a concrete design covering Behavior, Code Scope, optional Flow, …
- Distinctive: line 51
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Design.
- Very specific: line 55
Use the accepted design to decide whether $tidy-first is needed.
- Distinctive: line 57
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries, Changes, and Verification Results.
- Very specific: line 61
Use $build-incremental to implement practical behavior slices, verifying each useful surface and comparing it with the accepted design.
- Distinctive: line 63
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Design, and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries, Changes, and Verification Results.
- Distinctive: line 69
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Design, and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries.
- Very specific: line 73
Use $code-simplify to remove unnecessary or redundant implementation while preserving intended behavior exactly.
- Distinctive: line 75
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries and Changes.
- Distinctive: line 79
Run verification proportional to risk and scope, covering requested and preserved behavior, relevant failure paths, affected integration …
- Distinctive: line 81
If verification fails, determine whether it was caused by the current change and return to the earliest affected substep.
- Distinctive: line 83
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Design, and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries and Verification Results.
- Distinctive: line 89
Use the following review cycle:
- Very specific: line 94
Ask the same code-reviewer to verify the resolutions and review the resulting implementation for remaining or newly introduced issues.
- Distinctive: line 98
If the user explicitly prohibits subagent use, perform the review directly and record that it was not independent.
- Distinctive: line 100
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Review, and Implementation Record > Changes and Verification Results.
- Distinctive: line 106
Update relevant user, developer, API, architecture, workflow, or wiki documentation when needed.
- Distinctive: line 108
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Documentation.
- Distinctive: line 119
If any condition is unmet, reopen the earliest affected step.
- Distinctive: line 121
Update the Implementation Note: Status and Progress.
- Distinctive: line 129
Keep the Design section current.
≈ “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
Implementation Workflow
Carry one cohesive feature or behavior change from task definition through design, implementation, verification, independent review, and documentation. Perform the implementation directly to retain end-to-end context, and use a living Implementation Note to track the work.
When to Use
Use this workflow for a cohesive feature implementation or behavior change when it involves one or more of:
- non-obvious design decisions
- multiple interacting components or behaviors
- meaningful regression or integration risk
- enough work that a structured workflow and independent review improve reliability
When an ExecPlan exists, apply this workflow within each relevant feature or behavior-change task rather than replacing the ExecPlan.
Workflow
Maintain the Implementation Note defined below as a concise living record throughout this workflow.
Apply each "Update the Implementation Note" instruction when the step changes state. Do not defer updates until the end.
1. Initialize the Implementation Task
Complete substeps 1.1 and 1.2 sequentially. Complete step 1 only after both substeps are complete.
1.1 Define the Task
Define the task goal, in-scope behavior, explicit non-goals, and known constraints before creating the Implementation Note or beginning implementation.
1.2 Create and Initialize the Implementation Note
Create .agent-work/implementation/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{short-task-name}.md with a descriptive kebab-case task name using the template below.
If creating .agent-work/, create .agent-work/.gitignore containing only *. Do not modify the repository root .gitignore.
Update the Implementation Note: Task Definition and Progress.
2. Implement the Change
Perform substeps 2.1 through 2.6 directly and sequentially. Do not delegate design or implementation work. Complete step 2 only after every substep is complete.
2.1 Design the Implementation
Follow $design-first to inspect repository evidence and finalize a concrete design covering Behavior, Code Scope, optional Flow, Verification, and material Assumptions and Open Questions. Do not proceed while a question that materially affects implementation remains unresolved.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Design.
2.2 Tidy the Existing Implementation if Needed
Use the accepted design to decide whether $tidy-first is needed. Apply only small, behavior-preserving tidies that make the change safer or clearer, and verify preserved behavior when practical.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries, Changes, and Verification Results.
2.3 Implement the Behavior
Use $build-incremental to implement practical behavior slices, verifying each useful surface and comparing it with the accepted design. If the design becomes incomplete, too broad, or incorrect, pause and revise it before continuing.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Design, and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries, Changes, and Verification Results.
2.4 Reassess the Implementation
Review the complete implementation against the goal, scope, preserved behavior, accepted design, and any newly discovered problems, constraints, missing cases, or out-of-scope changes. Return to the appropriate earlier substep when material revision is needed.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Design, and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries.
2.5 Simplify the Change
Use $code-simplify to remove unnecessary or redundant implementation while preserving intended behavior exactly.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries and Changes.
2.6 Test and Verify
Run verification proportional to risk and scope, covering requested and preserved behavior, relevant failure paths, affected integration points, and broader checks when warranted. Do not complete the step while relevant verification is failing or unperformed without a documented reason.
If verification fails, determine whether it was caused by the current change and return to the earliest affected substep. Keep step 2 incomplete until all relevant failures are resolved and verification is rerun.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Design, and Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries and Verification Results.
3. Review the Implementation
Delegate an independent review to one code-reviewer. Provide the reviewer with the Implementation Note, the relevant changes, and the available verification results.
Use the following review cycle:
code-reviewerreviews the implementation and reports findings.- Evaluate the findings and decide the required action.
- Address accepted findings, update the Implementation Note, and rerun relevant verification.
- Ask the same
code-reviewerto verify the resolutions and review the resulting implementation for remaining or newly introduced issues.
Repeat until the code-reviewer reports no unresolved findings. Then decide whether to accept the implementation or reopen an earlier step. Keep step 3 incomplete until the implementation is accepted.
If the user explicitly prohibits subagent use, perform the review directly and record that it was not independent.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress, Review, and Implementation Record > Changes and Verification Results.
4. Update Documentation if Needed
Determine whether the completed change requires documentation updates.
Update relevant user, developer, API, architecture, workflow, or wiki documentation when needed.
Update the Implementation Note: Progress and Documentation.
5. Confirm Completion
Confirm that:
- steps 1 through 4 are complete and the Implementation Note reflects the final state
- the implementation matches the final Task Definition and Design
- verification supports the requested and preserved behavior and relevant failure paths
- the
code-reviewerreports no unresolved findings
If any condition is unmet, reopen the earliest affected step. Otherwise, mark the task and Implementation Note as complete.
Update the Implementation Note: Status and Progress.
Implementation Note
Maintain one living Implementation Note for each implementation task. Use it to keep the task definition, design, progress, implementation record, verification, review, and documentation current.
Record decisions, discoveries, deviations, and results when they become relevant. Keep the note concise; do not store raw logs or a transcript of the work.
Keep the Design section current. When a decision or discovery changes the design, update the Design section and record the reason under Implementation Record > Decisions and Discoveries.
Use this template:
# Implementation: {Task}
- Status: In progress
- Started: {YYYY-MM-DD}
## Task Definition
### Goal
{Describe the intended outcome.}
### Scope
#### In scope
- {Required change}
#### Non-goals
- {Behavior or area intentionally excluded}
### Constraints
- {Known technical, product, repository, or operational constraint}
## Progress
- [ ] 1. Initialize the Implementation Task
- [ ] 1.1 Define the Task
- [ ] 1.2 Create and Initialize the Implementation Note
- [ ] 2. Implement the Change
- [ ] 2.1 Design the Implementation
- [ ] 2.2 Tidy the Existing Implementation if Needed
- [ ] 2.3 Implement the Behavior
- [ ] 2.4 Reassess the Implementation
- [ ] 2.5 Simplify the Change
- [ ] 2.6 Test and Verify
- [ ] 3. Review the Implementation
- [ ] 4. Update Documentation if Needed
- [ ] 5. Confirm Completion
## Design
### Behavior
- Change: {Behavior to add or modify}
- Preserve: {Existing behavior that must remain unchanged}
### Code Scope
- Files and symbols: {Files, modules, classes, and functions to change or add}
- Interfaces and dependencies: {Material interfaces and dependencies}
- Implementation: {Concrete implementation design; include high-level pseudocode only when it clarifies a non-obvious design}
### Flow
{Include a short flow only when branching or data movement would otherwise be unclear. Omit this section when it is unnecessary.}
### Verification
- {How changed behavior will be demonstrated}
- {How preserved behavior and failure paths will be checked}
### Assumptions and Open Questions
- {Include only unresolved items that materially affect implementation. Omit this section when there are none.}
## Implementation Record
### Decisions and Discoveries
- {Decision, discovery, or design revision and its impact}
### Changes
- {Concise summary of implemented changes}
### Verification Results
- {Command or check}: {Result}
## Review
- Finding: {Review finding}
Resolution: {Change made, reason no change was needed, or accepted risk}
- Review status: {Findings remain or no unresolved findings}
- Decision: {Accept the implementation or reopen an earlier step}
## Documentation
- {Updated documentation or reason no update was needed}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.

