slow-is-fast
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Research → Plan → Code workflow. Enforces evidence-based reasoning, codebase research, and structured planning before code modifications. Applied automatically for moderate+ tasks.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 9
Core rule: Never modify code based on assumptions alone.
- Distinctive: line 24
Follow-up changes in same conversation where research was already done
- Distinctive: line 29
Before any action, apply these internally (do not output unless requested).
- Distinctive: line 47
Don't just treat symptoms — infer deeper causes
- Distinctive: line 49
Verify most likely first; update when invalidated
- Distinctive: line 76
Verify API behavior, library usage, and framework conventions against official sources.
- Very specific: line 78
Use context7 (resolve-library-id → query-docs) for libraries/frameworks involved
- Distinctive: line 79
Use WebSearch when context7 lacks coverage or for newer APIs
- Distinctive: line 80
Check changelogs/migration guides if version-specific behavior is involved
- Distinctive: line 86
Search for common pitfalls, edge cases, and known issues
- Distinctive: line 100
Only ask clarifying questions when missing info would block progress
- Distinctive: line 101
Avoid providing essentially identical plans
- Distinctive: line 112
Before providing code, briefly state which files/modules will be modified and why
- Distinctive: line 113
Prefer minimal, reviewable changes: local snippets/patches over complete files
- Distinctive: line 115
If major problems discovered → pause, switch back to Plan mode
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Development Workflow: Slow is Fast
Core rule: Never modify code based on assumptions alone. Ground every decision in evidence.
Complexity Assessment
| Complexity | Characteristics | Workflow |
| Trivial | Typo, formatting, <10 lines, single API | Answer directly, quick grep for context |
| Moderate | Non-trivial logic in single file, local refactoring | Standard: all phases below |
| Complex | Cross-module design, concurrency, new architecture | Deep: use Explore agent, WebSearch, context7 |
Skip Conditions
Research can be minimal when:
- Pure formatting, typo, or rename fixes
- User explicitly provides the exact solution or says "just do it"
- Follow-up changes in same conversation where research was already done
- The change is within code you just wrote in this conversation
Phase 0: Reasoning Principles
Before any action, apply these internally (do not output unless requested).
Constraint Priority
Analyze in this order:
- Rules and Constraints — never violate for convenience
- Operation Order and Reversibility — ensure no step blocks subsequent steps
- Prerequisites and Missing Information — only ask when missing info significantly affects solution choice
- User Preferences — style, language (without violating higher priorities)
Risk Assessment
- Low-risk (searches, simple refactoring): Proceed with existing information
- High-risk (data modifications, API changes, history rewrites): State risks, provide safer alternatives
Abductive Reasoning
When encountering problems:
- Don't just treat symptoms — infer deeper causes
- Construct 1–3 hypotheses ordered by likelihood
- Verify most likely first; update when invalidated
Conflict Resolution Priority
- Readability and Maintainability
- Correctness and Safety
- Explicit business requirements
- Performance and resource usage
- Code length and local elegance
Phase 1: Research
Execute before entering Plan mode. Summarize findings before proposing any approach.
For moderate+ tasks, use Explore agent to run research in an isolated context.
1.1 Codebase Search
Understand what already exists. Do not reinvent or contradict existing patterns.
- Grep for related function names, types, patterns, error messages
- Glob for related files by naming convention
- Read key files to understand existing architecture and conventions
- For broad exploration, use Explore agent to parallelize searches
1.2 Documentation Lookup
Verify API behavior, library usage, and framework conventions against official sources.
- Use context7 (
resolve-library-id→query-docs) for libraries/frameworks involved - Use WebSearch when context7 lacks coverage or for newer APIs
- Check changelogs/migration guides if version-specific behavior is involved
1.3 Solution Survey & Reuse Decision
Apply the reuse decision matrix (see references/research-patterns.md).
- Search for common pitfalls, edge cases, and known issues
- Identify trade-offs between candidate approaches
- Produce 1-3 candidate approaches with evidence-backed pros/cons
Phase 2: Plan Mode (Analysis / Alignment)
- Briefly restate: objective, key constraints, current state
- Analyze top-down, find root causes, not just patch symptoms
- Provide 1–3 feasible options, each including:
- Summary approach
- Impact scope (modules/interfaces involved)
- Pros and cons
- Potential risks
- Verification methods
- Only ask clarifying questions when missing info would block progress
- Avoid providing essentially identical plans
Exit Conditions
- User explicitly chooses an option, OR
- One option is clearly superior (explain reasoning, proactively choose)
Once conditions met → enter Code mode directly.
Phase 3: Code Mode (Execute Plan)
- Before providing code, briefly state which files/modules will be modified and why
- Prefer minimal, reviewable changes: local snippets/patches over complete files
- Indicate how to verify: tests/commands to run, new test cases if needed
- If major problems discovered → pause, switch back to Plan mode
Output Should Include
- What changes were made, where
- How to verify
- Known limitations or follow-up TODOs
Anti-Patterns
- Cargo-cult coding: Copying patterns without understanding why they exist
- Stale knowledge: Using remembered API behavior instead of checking current docs
- Premature implementation: Jumping to code after reading only one file
- Research theater: Searching but ignoring findings that contradict your initial idea
- Dependency bloat: Adding a library when a 5-line solution exists in the project
- NIH syndrome: Rewriting what already exists because you didn't search thoroughly
- Symptom patching: Fixing symptoms without investigating root causes
- Hasty conclusions: Providing answers before completing reasoning
See also: references/research-patterns.md for anti-rationalization table and reuse decision matrix.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- ahonn/dotfiles★ 62same 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 repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/supabase-postgres-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/supabase-postgres-best-practices/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ai-app-security-auditSkill
- ai-slide-templatesSkill
- backlog-ready-specSkill
- check-compiler-errorsSkill
- clawpackerSkill
- deslopSkill
- devex-reviewSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- fix-merge-conflictsSkill
- founder-office-hoursSkill
- get-cookiesSkill
- get-pr-commentsSkill
- gh-issue-priority-handoffSkill
- image2-with-codexSkill
- investigateSkill
- local-ultra-reviewSkill
- loop-on-ciSkill
- loop-on-pr-review-and-fixSkill
- new-branch-and-prSkill
- npm-release-pipelineSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
- plan-devex-reviewSkill
- planmode-ceoSkill
- planmode-engineerSkill
- qa-onlySkill
- review-and-shipSkill
- run-smoke-testsSkill
- security-best-practicesSkill
- site-design-auditSkill
- site-design-fixSkill
- supabase-postgres-best-practicesSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- xianyu-api-client-skillSkill
- xianyu-automation-skillSkill
- xianyu-product-manager-skillSkill
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.

