implement-issue
Skill18 starsChanged 22 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Implement a Dativo Talon GitHub issue from investigation through verified handoff.
30 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- kbourzayq/arch-guardtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- normalled/apijacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- solo-ist/prosetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- gymcoach-app/gymcoachtheir own version, first seen Oct 26, 2026
- Julien-Au/gymcoachtheir own version, first seen Oct 26, 2026
- frostney/pascal-mcp-sdktheir own version, first seen Oct 21, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use review-issue, create-issue and 5 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
ravihammondSkillreview-issue
Review and repair one GitHub issue implementation in the current checkout.
Also in 4 projects that use this
sahinSkillcreate-issue
Also in 6 projects that use this
TermiX-officialSkillmerge-pr
Merge a GitHub PR via squash after /preparepr. Use when asked to merge a ready PR. Do not push to main or modify code. Ensure the PR ends in MERGED state and clean up worktrees after success.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ShopifySkilltriage-issue
Triage a GitHub issue — classify priority (P0/P1/P2), search for duplicates, and apply labels.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillcreate-pr
Create pull requests following Sentry conventions. Use when opening PRs, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review. Follows Sentry's code review guidelines.
Also in 5 projects that use this
OpenAISkillwriting-skills
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions30 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 30
- dlt-hub/dlt★ 6.1ksame name
- google/site-kit-wp★ 1.4ksame name
- luainkernel/lunatik★ 611same name
- warpdotdev/oz-for-oss★ 313same name
- codemonkey85/PKMDS-Blazor★ 240same name
- gymcoach-app/gymcoach★ 182same name
- Julien-Au/gymcoach★ 182same name
- aaddrick/claude-pipeline★ 128same name
- alexjbarnes/cockpit★ 16same name
- sgomez/developer-skills★ 8same name
20 more not listed
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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- architecture-reviewSkill
- cut-releaseSkill
- investigate-bugSkill
- prepare-prSkill
- respond-to-reviewSkill
- verify-changeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 29 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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 11
Read the complete current issue and linked blocking/dependent issues.
- Distinctive: line 12
If the issue affects product/architecture direction, read current #265.
- Very specific: line 23
Do not treat historical comments, old docs, or agent memory as newer than the current issue/code/tests.
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not create speculative abstractions or duplicate sources of truth.
- Distinctive: line 30
Add the lowest useful regression first, then implementation.
- Very specific: line 31
Add integration/E2E coverage when the contract crosses a real storage/API/runtime/protocol boundary.
- Very specific: line 32
Update docs/CHANGELOG/LIMITATIONS only to describe behavior actually implemented.
- Very specific: line 36
Run the /verify-change ladder, in order as appropriate:
- Very specific: line 43
When a contract surface changed (machine code, evidence annotation, config field, pricing entry, smoke section), complete the registration …
- Very specific: line 47
Do not commit, push, mutate the issue, or create a PR unless the user's task explicitly authorizes it.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 29 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Implement GitHub issue $ARGUMENTS.
Before editing
- Read the complete current issue and linked blocking/dependent issues.
- If the issue affects product/architecture direction, read current #265.
- Inspect the relevant implementation and nearest tests.
- State:
- current behavior;
- target behavior;
- invariants and trust boundaries;
- compatibility/persistence implications;
- explicit non-goals.
- Identify the smallest coherent implementation.
- For non-trivial changes, present the plan before editing.
Do not treat historical comments, old docs, or agent memory as newer than the current issue/code/tests.
Implement
- Stay inside issue scope.
- Reuse canonical state, policy, evidence, projection, and error paths.
- Do not create speculative abstractions or duplicate sources of truth.
- Add the lowest useful regression first, then implementation.
- Add integration/E2E coverage when the contract crosses a real storage/API/runtime/protocol boundary.
- Update docs/CHANGELOG/LIMITATIONS only to describe behavior actually implemented.
Verify
Run the /verify-change ladder, in order as appropriate:
- focused/changed-package tests (race detector on for anything concurrent);
- relevant integration tests;
- relevant E2E/smoke proof;
- broader repository checks when required (
make check,go test ./testswhen docs changed).
When a contract surface changed (machine code, evidence annotation, config field, pricing entry, smoke section), complete the registration set in .claude/rules/contract-surfaces.md.
Inspect the final diff and compare it against every acceptance criterion.
Do not commit, push, mutate the issue, or create a PR unless the user's task explicitly authorizes it. When it does, follow /prepare-pr.
Handoff
Report:
- files/areas changed;
- important design decisions;
- acceptance criteria satisfied;
- exact tests run and results;
- unresolved limitations, risks, or follow-up work.
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.

