start-working
Skill8 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Scan all work sources — GitHub issues, open PRs, roadmap files, audit outputs, codebase TODOs — to determine what to work on next.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jason8-8/start-working-templatetheir own version, first seen Jul 24, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- jason8-8/start-working-template★ 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 repository35 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- commandsSkill
- agentic-auditSkill
- agent-reviewSkill
- autonomous-dev-flowSkill
- batch-mergeSkill
- bug-huntSkill
- catchupSkill
- check-prSkill
- commitSkill
- create-issueSkill
- create-prSkill
- decideSkill
- decompose-issueSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- full-reviewSkill
- hallucination-checkSkill
- learnSkill
- manual-testing-modeSkill
- mergeSkill
- parallel-devSkill
- prime-directiveSkill
- project-auditSkill
- pulseSkill
- qa-updateSkill
- reconSkill
- session-lifecycleSkill
- skillSkill
- smoke-formSkill
- smoke-testSkill
- swarm-auditSkill
- tackle-issuesSkill
- tiered-delegationSkill
- visual-briefSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
If empty, scan everything with defaults
- Very specific: line 38
Read CLAUDE.md and any .claude/rules/ files to understand the project's conventions, priorities, and known issues.
- Distinctive: line 109
Search for these files (check existence, don't fail if missing):
- Distinctive: line 120
Check for existing audit reports:
- Distinctive: line 134
If audit reports exist, read the master assessment for any unaddressed recommendations (check if corresponding issues exist).
- Very specific: line 154
Use Grep to find TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX, and WORKAROUND markers in source files.
- Distinctive: line 156
Test fixtures and generated files
- Very specific: line 174
If focus=AREA was specified, boost items matching that area by one tier (P2→P1, P3→P2).
- Distinctive: line 179
If a roadmap item already has a GitHub issue → keep the issue, drop the roadmap entry (note the link)
- Very specific: line 180
If an audit recommendation already has a from-audit issue → keep the issue, drop the audit entry
- Very specific: line 181
If a TODO in code references an issue number (e.g., TODO(#42)) → link to the issue, don't list separately
- Distinctive: line 182
If multiple TODOs relate to the same theme → group them as one item
- Very specific: line 186
If focus=AREA is set, filter to only show items related to that area.
- Distinctive: line 220
After the summary table, provide detail sections only for sources that had findings:
- Distinctive: line 283
When the queue is truly empty, perform a lightweight codebase scan to surface potential investigations.
- Distinctive: line 293
Check which source directories have corresponding test files
- Distinctive: line 295
Look for test files that are empty or minimal (< 5 assertions)
- Distinctive: line 306
Check for known vulnerabilities if tooling is available
≈ “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
/start-working
Scan all work sources — GitHub issues, open PRs, roadmap files, audit outputs, codebase TODOs — to determine what to work on next. If nothing actionable is found, perform a lightweight codebase audit to surface potential investigations.
This skill is read-only — it never writes files, creates issues, or commits. It's a triage tool that feeds naturally into /autonomous-dev-flow or manual work.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS- Optional filters. Space-separated tokens:focus=AREA— Narrow to a specific area (e.g.,focus=testing,focus=security,focus=performance)limit=N— Max items to show per source (default: 10)include-closed— Also scan recently closed issues for context- If empty, scan everything with defaults
Examples:
/start-working
/start-working focus=testing
/start-working limit=5
/start-working focus=security include-closedInstructions
0. Setup
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
REPO_NAME=$(basename "$REPO")Parse $ARGUMENTS for focus, limit (default 10), and include-closed flag.
Read CLAUDE.md and any .claude/rules/ files to understand the project's conventions, priorities, and known issues.
1. Gather Work Sources
Collect data from all sources. Run independent queries in parallel where possible.
1a. GitHub Issues
# Open issues sorted by updated date (most recent activity first)
gh issue list --state open --json number,title,labels,assignees,milestone,createdAt,updatedAt --limit 50
# If include-closed flag set, also grab recently closed for context
gh issue list --state closed --json number,title,labels,closedAt --limit 20Categorize each open issue:
| Category | Detection |
| Blocked | Has label matching: blocked, wontfix, needs-design, on-hold |
| Assigned | Has assignees (someone is already working on it) |
| Ready | Unblocked, unassigned enhancement or from-review issues |
| Backlog | Open, unassigned, not blocked, but no explicit "ready" signal |
For "Ready" and "Backlog" issues, read the issue body to check for acceptance criteria:
gh issue view ${ISSUE_NUM} --json body -q .bodyIssues with clear acceptance criteria rank higher than vague ones.
1b. Open PRs Needing Attention
# All open PRs with review and check status
gh pr list --state open --json number,title,author,reviewDecision,isDraft,headRefName,createdAt,updatedAt --limit 20Flag PRs that need attention:
| Signal | Meaning |
reviewDecision: CHANGES_REQUESTED | Review feedback needs addressing |
isDraft: true | Work in progress — may be stale |
| Stale (no update in 7+ days) | Forgotten PR — needs decision (finish, close, or rebase) |
Also check CI status for open PRs:
# For each open PR, check if CI is failing
gh pr checks ${PR_NUM} --json name,state --jq '[.[] | select(.state != "SUCCESS" and .state != "SKIPPED")]'1c. Roadmap and Planning Files
Scan for planning documents in common locations:
# Check for common planning files (don't fail on missing)
for f in ROADMAP.md TODO.md CHANGELOG.md; do
test -f "$f" && echo "Found: $f"
done
# Check common planning directories
for d in docs/roadmap docs/planning docs/TODO; do
test -d "$d" && echo "Found: $d/" && ls "$d"
doneSearch for these files (check existence, don't fail if missing):
ROADMAP.md,TODO.md,CHANGELOG.md(for recent/planned entries)docs/roadmap/,docs/planning/,docs/TODO/
For each found file, scan for:
- Unchecked items (
- [ ]) - Sections labeled "Planned", "Next", "Upcoming", "TODO", "Backlog"
- Items not yet represented as GitHub issues
1d. Audit Output Files
Check for existing audit reports:
# Look for project-audit output
ls docs/project-audit/ 2>/dev/null
ls docs/audits/ 2>/dev/null
# Also check for from-audit issues that are still open
gh issue list --state open --label "from-audit" --json number,title,labels --limit 20 2>/dev/null
# And from-review issues (deferred work from PR reviews)
gh issue list --state open --label "from-review" --json number,title,labels --limit 20 2>/dev/nullIf audit reports exist, read the master assessment for any unaddressed recommendations (check if corresponding issues exist).
1e. Codebase TODOs
Scan for TODO/FIXME/HACK markers in source code:
# Search for actionable markers in server and app source files
grep -r "TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX\|WORKAROUND" \
server/**/*.js \
app/**/*.tsx \
app/**/*.ts \
--exclude-dir=node_modules \
--exclude-dir=.godot \
--exclude-dir=build \
--exclude-dir=dist \
--exclude="*.lock" \
2>/dev/nullUse Grep to find TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX, and WORKAROUND markers in source files. Exclude:
node_modules/,.godot/,build/,dist/, vendor directories- Test fixtures and generated files
- Lock files
Collect file path, line number, and the marker text for each hit.
2. Prioritize and Deduplicate
2a. Assign Priority Tiers
Map every finding to a unified priority tier:
| Tier | Label | Signals |
| P0 | Immediate | PRs with CHANGES_REQUESTED, open bug issues, failing CI on open PRs |
| P1 | High | from-review issues, unblocked enhancement issues with acceptance criteria, stale PRs |
| P2 | Normal | enhancement issues with acceptance criteria, from-audit issues, roadmap items |
| P3 | Exploratory | Codebase TODOs, vague issues without criteria, audit recommendations without issues |
If focus=AREA was specified, boost items matching that area by one tier (P2→P1, P3→P2).
2b. Deduplicate
Cross-reference findings across sources:
- If a roadmap item already has a GitHub issue → keep the issue, drop the roadmap entry (note the link)
- If an audit recommendation already has a
from-auditissue → keep the issue, drop the audit entry - If a TODO in code references an issue number (e.g.,
TODO(#42)) → link to the issue, don't list separately - If multiple TODOs relate to the same theme → group them as one item
2c. Apply Focus Filter
If focus=AREA is set, filter to only show items related to that area. Match against:
- Issue labels
- Issue title/body keywords
- File paths (e.g.,
focus=testingmatches test files) - TODO context
3. Present Work Queue
Output the primary summary table, then detail sections for each source. Cap each detail section to the top limit items (default 10) by priority — the queries fetch a wide net so categorization is accurate, but only the most relevant limit rows per source are shown. Note any truncation (e.g. "showing top 10 of 23").
Primary Output — Work Queue Table
## What's Next for ${REPO_NAME}
**Sources scanned:** GitHub issues, open PRs, roadmap files, audit outputs, codebase TODOs
**Found:** ${TOTAL_ITEMS} actionable items across ${SOURCE_COUNT} sources
### Work Queue
| Priority | Source | Item | Why |
|----------|--------|------|-----|
| P0 | PR | #45 — Failing CI, changes requested | Review feedback unaddressed for 3 days |
| P0 | Issue | #12 — Login broken on Android | Bug, reported 2 days ago |
| P1 | Issue | #18 — Add retry logic to API | from-review, has acceptance criteria |
| P1 | PR | #38 — Draft PR stale 14 days | Needs decision: finish or close |
| P2 | Issue | #25 — Improve error messages | enhancement, milestone v1.2 |
| P2 | Roadmap | Add rate limiting | In ROADMAP.md, no issue yet |
| P3 | TODO | 5× FIXME in src/auth/ | Scattered workarounds for token refresh |
| P3 | Audit | Upgrade vulnerable deps | From project-audit, no issue created |Detail Sections
After the summary table, provide detail sections only for sources that had findings:
GitHub Issues (if any):
### Open Issues ({N} total, {M} ready, {K} blocked)
**Ready to work on:**
- #18 — Add retry logic to API (`from-review`, `enhancement`) — has 3 acceptance criteria
- #25 — Improve error messages (`enhancement`) — milestone v1.2
**Blocked / Needs input:**
- #30 — Choose auth provider (`needs-design`) — requires decision
- #35 — Blocked by #18 (`blocked`)
**Assigned (in progress):**
- #22 — Refactor auth module — assigned to @userOpen PRs (if any):
### Open PRs Needing Attention ({N})
- **#45** — Fix login flow: Changes requested 3 days ago, CI failing
- **#38** — Add caching layer: Draft, no updates in 14 daysRoadmap Items (if any):
### Roadmap Items Not Yet Tracked ({N})
Items from planning docs without corresponding GitHub issues:
- Add rate limiting (ROADMAP.md line 42)
- Implement offline mode (ROADMAP.md line 58)Codebase TODOs (if any):
### Codebase TODOs ({N} markers across {M} files)
| Marker | Count | Top Locations |
|--------|-------|---------------|
| TODO | 12 | server/auth/ (5), server/api/ (4), app/utils/ (3) |
| FIXME | 3 | server/auth/token.js (2), server/db/migrate.js (1) |
| HACK | 1 | server/api/retry.js:42 |Recommended Next Action
End with a concrete recommendation:
### Recommended Next Action
Based on the work queue:
- **If you want to fix what's broken:** Address P0 items first — {description}
- **If you want to build features:** Run `/autonomous-dev-flow {issue_numbers}` for the P1/P2 ready issues
- **If you want to clean up:** The {N} TODOs in server/auth/ suggest a refactoring pass4. Quick Audit (Fallback — Only If Queue Is Empty)
ONLY run this phase if Phases 1-3 found zero actionable items. If there were any issues, PRs, roadmap items, or TODOs, skip this phase entirely.
When the queue is truly empty, perform a lightweight codebase scan to surface potential investigations. This is NOT a full project audit — it's a quick check across a few dimensions.
4a. Test Coverage Gaps
# Check which source directories have corresponding test files
# Server: npm test
# App: npx jest- Check which source directories have corresponding test files
- Identify source files with no test counterpart
- Look for test files that are empty or minimal (< 5 assertions)
4b. Dependency Health
# Check for outdated dependencies
npm outdated
npm audit- Count outdated dependencies
- Check for known vulnerabilities if tooling is available
4c. Code Quality Signals
Quick scan for potential issues:
- Files over 500 lines (may need splitting)
- Functions/methods over 50 lines (may need refactoring)
- Deeply nested code (4+ levels of indentation)
- Duplicated patterns across files
4d. Documentation Gaps
- README.md: is it up to date? Does it cover setup, usage, contributing?
- API documentation: are public interfaces documented?
- Architecture: any
docs/architecture/or ADR files?
4e. Present Quick Audit Results
## Quick Audit — Potential Investigations
No actionable items found in the standard work sources. Here's what a quick codebase scan revealed:
| Area | Status | Finding |
|------|--------|---------|
| Test Coverage | ⚠️ | {N} source files have no test counterpart |
| Dependencies | ✅ | All up to date |
| Code Quality | ⚠️ | {N} files over 500 lines |
| Documentation | ⚠️ | README missing setup instructions |
### Suggested Investigations
1. **Add tests for {module}** — {N} files in `server/{path}/` have no tests. Effort: M
2. **Split {file}** — {file} is {N} lines. Consider extracting {concept}. Effort: S
3. **Update README** — Missing: setup instructions, environment variables. Effort: S
### Want a Deep Audit?
Run `/project-audit` for a comprehensive multi-agent analysis with detailed recommendations.Critical Rules
- Read-only — This skill NEVER writes files, creates issues, creates PRs, or commits. It is purely informational. The user decides what to act on.
- Quick, not deep — Phase 1-3 should complete in under 2 minutes. The fallback audit (Phase 4) adds 1-2 minutes. This is NOT
/project-audit. - Prioritize actionability — Items with clear acceptance criteria and "ready" signals rank above vague ideas. The user should be able to pick the top item and start working immediately.
- Deduplicate across sources — Never show the same work item from multiple sources. Link them instead.
- Graceful degradation — If a source is unavailable (no
ghauth, no roadmap file, no audit reports), skip it silently and note it in the sources summary. Never fail on a missing source. - Respect blocked/assigned — Show blocked and assigned items for context but clearly separate them from the actionable queue. Never recommend working on a blocked or assigned item.
- Composable output — The "Recommended Next Action" section should include copy-pasteable commands (e.g.,
/autonomous-dev-flow #12 #18 #25) so the user can immediately act on the findings. - No file writes — The fallback audit in Phase 4 outputs to the conversation only. Unlike
/project-audit, it does NOT write report files or create adocs/directory.
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.

