agentleFS
dougcunhadougcunha/TokenHound/.agents/skills/sdd-plan-corrections/SKILL.md

sdd-plan-corrections

Skill3 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub

SDD corrections when a code review must become traceable tasks; does not implement or alter the report.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Output: every item assigned; no duplicate finding or invented decision.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Output: every actionable finding has a new or existing task, acceptance, and verification.

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Check coverage, traceability, DAG, atomicity, commands, and idempotency.

    line 20

≈ “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.

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

Plan SDD corrections

  1. Fix one tasks/prd-[slug]/codereview_[num]/ by argument or context. When tasks/prd-[slug]/context-snapshot.md exists, load it through the Load branch of .agents/skills/sdd-snapshot/SKILL.md first. Search only for missing values; multiple candidates require a choice. Require and read its codereview.md once; preserve it. Output: exact, readable report, without mixing IDs between reports.
  2. Classify every item as actionable, informational, or pending. In APPROVED, plan only what was requested; in APPROVED WITH RESERVATIONS, improvements require authorized scope; in REJECTED, cover violations, incompleteness, and failures. An unknown status allows only explicitly actionable findings. Preserve CR-NN; in legacy reports without IDs, assign a local ID by order and section. Inventory root and done/ metadata to reuse tasks; finding identity is report path + ID. Output: every item assigned; no duplicate finding or invented decision.
  3. Check evidence in the smallest necessary code or TechSpec section; send read-only explorers in parallel only when several findings each need a sweep across many files. Group only the same cause with a reviewable result. Model an acyclic DAG, limits, files, and tests; number new tasks after the largest number in the root and done/. For desktop C#/.NET, omit E2E; preserve the obligation with relevant unit, integration, or manual acceptance. A missing environment or decision becomes an explicit pending item, not a discarded finding. Output: every actionable finding has a new or existing task, acceptance, and verification; no orphan task.
  4. Read references/TEMPLATE_TASK.md in full when writing. Create reviewable task_[num].md files with at least two digits in the report folder, without reusing numbers or overwriting existing tasks. Reference sources by ID and section; preserve handoffs. Do not create a correction manifest: dependencies belong in tasks. Output: contracts on disk, report intact, and no code changes.
  5. Check coverage, traceability, DAG, atomicity, commands, and idempotency. Report files, reuse, pending items, and impact. Return to the caller; request execution approval only where scope is not already authorized. In standalone use, run the session pause from that reference with sdd-execute-corrections as next step. Output: concrete plan for HIL or already authorized execution; contradictions linked to affected tasks.

A task in done/ whose finding persists is an incomplete correction: keep history and return to the caller to create work in the new report. An unreadable report, conflicting numbering, or cause without evidence blocks only the dependent planning.

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.