phase-wise-checklist
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create or maintain evidence-backed, phase-wise implementation checklists in CodeHound plans. Use when a task asks to plan work by phase, update checklist status while implementing, reconcile shipped work with plan rows, or produce one canonical execution ledger.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- chinmay-sawant/gopdfsuitedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- chinmay-sawant/gopdfsuit★ 60770% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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
- Very specific: line 8
Create one canonical plan under plans/ and treat it as a live execution ledger.
- Distinctive: line 12
Read the named parent plan/checklist and inspect the current implementation before changing any status.
- Distinctive: line 13
Use the repository graph tools for code discovery when available.
- Distinctive: line 14
Start with the required plan shape:
- Very specific: line 39
Update a row only after the matching source/test/benchmark check succeeds.
- Very specific: line 40
If a row is moved to a newer canonical ledger, rewrite the source row as [~] with an explicit pointer.
- Distinctive: line 45
Prefer current code, tests, benchmarks, scanner output, and CI configuration over historical notes.
- Distinctive: line 47
Keep risk statements separate from confirmed defects.
≈ “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
Phase-Wise Checklist
Create one canonical plan under plans/ and treat it as a live execution ledger.
Workflow
- Read the named parent plan/checklist and inspect the current implementation before changing any status.
- Use the repository graph tools for code discovery when available; otherwise use focused source search. Treat plan prose as a claim, not evidence.
Start with the required plan shape:
# <Hierarchy> - <Title> > **Parent:** `<path>` - reference > **Status:** current state > **Estimated effort:** estimate --- ## Overview ## Executive Summary ## Phase 1: <Area> ### 1.1 <Slice> - [ ] Verifiable action ## Dependencies- Make every checklist row atomic: one code change or one validation result. Include the affected path, rule/issue ID, expected behavior, and required proof where useful.
- Order phases by dependency and risk: correctness/security first, then API/data contracts, then performance/cleanup, then closure gates.
- Use statuses consistently:
[ ]not started or not proven;[x]implemented and validated with current evidence;[~]intentionally deferred/partial, with reason, owner boundary, and next gate.
- Update a row only after the matching source/test/benchmark check succeeds. Record the command and outcome beside closure gates; keep release measurements distinct from dev-loop measurements.
- If a row is moved to a newer canonical ledger, rewrite the source row as
[~]with an explicit pointer. Do not leave duplicate active work in multiple files. - Preserve unrelated worktree changes. Do not close a security, performance, or migration item merely because a plan says it was done.
Evidence Rules
- Prefer current code, tests, benchmarks, scanner output, and CI configuration over historical notes.
- State negative results precisely: e.g. "no production
unsafebeyond X found in this audit", never "no bugs exist". - Keep risk statements separate from confirmed defects. Label hypotheses and give their validation step.
- For performance items, include the exact release command, dataset/path, cold/warm cache state, and metric; successful execution is not benchmark proof.
Completion Handoff
Before declaring a phase complete, confirm its rows, run the smallest relevant validation, synchronize the checklist, and provide a concise result plus the next unchecked phase. Do not create a second status document unless it is explicitly a deferred ledger with a pointer from the canonical plan.
Required Checks
- For documentation-only changes, do not run lint or test checks.
- For every non-documentation change, run
make lintandmake testbefore marking the phase complete. Record both outcomes in the canonical checklist; leave the row unchecked if either command fails.
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.

