agentleFS
cogine-aicogine-ai/cogine-dev-skillset/skills/slow-is-fast/SKILL.md

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Core rule: Never modify code based on assumptions alone.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Follow-up changes in same conversation where research was already done

    line 24
  3. Distinctive:

    Before any action, apply these internally (do not output unless requested).

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't just treat symptoms — infer deeper causes

    line 47
  5. Distinctive:

    Verify most likely first; update when invalidated

    line 49
  6. Distinctive:

    Verify API behavior, library usage, and framework conventions against official sources.

    line 76
  7. Very specific:

    Use context7 (resolve-library-id → query-docs) for libraries/frameworks involved

    line 78
  8. Distinctive:

    Use WebSearch when context7 lacks coverage or for newer APIs

    line 79
  9. Distinctive:

    Check changelogs/migration guides if version-specific behavior is involved

    line 80
  10. Distinctive:

    Search for common pitfalls, edge cases, and known issues

    line 86
  11. Distinctive:

    Only ask clarifying questions when missing info would block progress

    line 100
  12. Distinctive:

    Avoid providing essentially identical plans

    line 101
  13. Distinctive:

    Before providing code, briefly state which files/modules will be modified and why

    line 112
  14. Distinctive:

    Prefer minimal, reviewable changes: local snippets/patches over complete files

    line 113
  15. Distinctive:

    If major problems discovered → pause, switch back to Plan mode

    line 115

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Development Workflow: Slow is Fast

Core rule: Never modify code based on assumptions alone. Ground every decision in evidence.

Complexity Assessment

ComplexityCharacteristicsWorkflow
TrivialTypo, formatting, <10 lines, single APIAnswer directly, quick grep for context
ModerateNon-trivial logic in single file, local refactoringStandard: all phases below
ComplexCross-module design, concurrency, new architectureDeep: 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:

  1. Rules and Constraints — never violate for convenience
  2. Operation Order and Reversibility — ensure no step blocks subsequent steps
  3. Prerequisites and Missing Information — only ask when missing info significantly affects solution choice
  4. 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

  1. Readability and Maintainability
  2. Correctness and Safety
  3. Explicit business requirements
  4. Performance and resource usage
  5. 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)

  1. Briefly restate: objective, key constraints, current state
  2. Analyze top-down, find root causes, not just patch symptoms
  3. Provide 1–3 feasible options, each including:
    • Summary approach
    • Impact scope (modules/interfaces involved)
    • Pros and cons
    • Potential risks
    • Verification methods
  4. Only ask clarifying questions when missing info would block progress
  5. 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)

  1. Before providing code, briefly state which files/modules will be modified and why
  2. Prefer minimal, reviewable changes: local snippets/patches over complete files
  3. Indicate how to verify: tests/commands to run, new test cases if needed
  4. 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.

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.