requirement-to-implementation
Skill9 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Structured workflow for taking a requirement (feature, bug, refactor, chore, or performance task) from any source (Notion, GitHub, conversation) through planning, approval, implementation, verification, and documentation. Use when the user provides a requirement, task, ticket, or asks to implement something.
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-auditSkill
- add-documentationSkill
- add-error-handlingSkill
- address-github-pr-commentsSkill
- agent-risk-reviewSkill
- agent-work-receiptSkill
- automation-roi-auditSkill
- blind-spot-passSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commit-changes-mainSkill
- commit-same-branchSkill
- commitSkill
- create-pr-mainSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- decision-auditSkill
- define-agent-goalSkill
- design-agent-loopSkill
- fix-compile-errorsSkill
- fix-git-issuesSkill
- gauntlet-loopSkill
- generate-api-docsSkill
- generate-pr-descriptionSkill
- git-sync-workspaceSkill
- instruction-ablationSkill
- light-review-existing-diffsSkill
- lint-fixSkill
- lint-suiteSkill
- merge-open-prsSkill
- optimize-performanceSkill
- pathfinderSkill
- prompt-eval-debugSkill
- refactor-codeSkill
- run-all-tests-and-fixSkill
- scoped-auditSkill
- security-auditSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- setup-new-featureSkill
- structure-promptSkill
- tddSkill
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewSkill
- update-memory-bankSkill
- update-readmeSkill
- write-unit-testsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 25
Read the Memory Bank to ground yourself in project state:
- Distinctive: line 34
If any file is missing or stale, note it.
- Distinctive: line 45
Use exploratory subagents for broad investigations.
- Distinctive: line 76
Ask 4-6 clarifying questions if ambiguities remain.
- Very specific: line 98
After each meaningful change, run the project's test command for affected paths (for example npm test, pytest, go test ./..., bundle exec …
- Distinctive: line 102
Follow existing patterns found in Phase 2
- Distinctive: line 104
Check lints after substantive edits
- Distinctive: line 105
If a step reveals the plan was wrong, stop and re-plan with the user
- Distinctive: line 109
After implementation is complete and verified:
- Very specific: line 113
Update
.cursor/memory-bank/systemPatterns.md: if new patterns were introduced - Very specific: line 114
Update
.cursor/memory-bank/techContext.md: if tech stack or constraints changed - Distinctive: line 124
Cardinal rule: No implementation without an approved plan.
- Distinctive: line 128
No implementation without an approved plan: present the plan and wait for explicit approval before writing production code.
- Distinctive: line 129
Do not skip intake or exploration on an ambiguous requirement.
- Distinctive: line 130
Commit or push only on explicit user request.
≈ “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
Requirement to Implementation
Structured workflow that turns a requirement into verified, documented code. Every task (feature, bug fix, refactor, chore, or performance improvement) flows through the same phases.
Phase 0: Intake
Identify the requirement source and extract key information.
| Source | Action |
| Notion ticket | Use Notion MCP to fetch ticket details, acceptance criteria, and linked context |
| GitHub issue | Use gh issue view to pull title, body, labels, and linked PRs |
| Conversation | Extract the requirement from what the user described |
| Sentry issue | Use Sentry MCP to pull error details, stack traces, and affected users |
Produce a one-paragraph requirement summary confirming your understanding. Ask the user about literally anything:technical implementation, UI & UX, concerns, tradeoffs, etc. but make sure the questions are not obvious, be very in-depth and continue interviewing me continually until it's complete, then write the plan to the file.
Phase 1: Context Loading
Read the Memory Bank to ground yourself in project state:
.cursor/memory-bank/projectbrief.md: scope and goals.cursor/memory-bank/productContext.md: product context.cursor/memory-bank/techContext.md: tech stack and constraints.cursor/memory-bank/systemPatterns.md: architecture and patterns.cursor/user-memory-bank/activeContext.md: current focus.cursor/user-memory-bank/progress.md: what's done, what's pending
If any file is missing or stale, note it; you'll update them in Phase 5.
Phase 2: Exploration & Analysis
Explore the codebase to map the blast radius of the change:
- Identify affected files: entry points, services, APIs, jobs, UI, tests
- Read existing patterns: find similar implementations to follow
- Spot risks: PII/sensitive data exposure, authorization gaps, integration side effects, migration needs
- Note test coverage: existing tests that need updating, gaps that need filling
Use exploratory subagents for broad investigations. Use targeted searches for specific lookups.
Phase 3: Plan & Approve
Present a structured plan to the user. Do not implement until approved.
Plan Template
## Requirement
[One-sentence summary]
## Approach
[High-level description of the solution]
## Changes
1. [File/area]: [what changes and why]
2. [File/area]: [what changes and why]
...
## Verification Strategy
- [ ] [How you'll verify correctness (tests, manual checks, etc.)]
- [ ] [Specific test files to create or update]
## Risks & Considerations
- [Anything the user should be aware of]
## Questions (if any)
- [Clarifying questions that surfaced during exploration]Ask 4-6 clarifying questions if ambiguities remain. Wait for answers before finalizing the plan.
Once the user approves, proceed to implementation.
Phase 4: Implement
- Create a TodoWrite task list mirroring the approved plan's changes
- Mark each todo
in_progressas you begin it,completedwhen done - Work step by step: one todo at a time, verifying as you go
Verification (flexible per task)
Choose the verification approach that fits:
| Task Type | Approach |
| Bug fix | Write a failing test first, then fix, then verify it passes |
| New feature | Implement, then write specs covering happy path + edge cases |
| Refactor | Ensure existing specs still pass, add specs for new behavior |
| Performance | Benchmark before/after, verify no regression in specs |
| Chore | Verify with linter, specs, or manual confirmation as appropriate |
After each meaningful change, run the project's test command for affected paths (for example npm test, pytest, go test ./..., bundle exec rspec; use what the host repo documents). Fix failures before moving on.
Implementation Principles
- Follow existing patterns found in Phase 2
- One concern per change: don't mix unrelated modifications
- Check lints after substantive edits
- If a step reveals the plan was wrong, stop and re-plan with the user
Phase 5: Document
After implementation is complete and verified:
- Update
.cursor/user-memory-bank/activeContext.md: reflect current focus and recent changes - Update
.cursor/user-memory-bank/progress.md: mark what's done, note what's next - Update
.cursor/memory-bank/systemPatterns.md: if new patterns were introduced - Update
.cursor/memory-bank/techContext.md: if tech stack or constraints changed
Quick Reference: Phase Flow
Intake → Context → Explore → Plan → [Approve] → Implement → Document
↑ ↓
└──── Re-plan if needed ─────┘Cardinal rule: No implementation without an approved plan. Plans are cheap; rework is expensive.
Guardrails
- No implementation without an approved plan: present the plan and wait for explicit approval before writing production code.
- Do not skip intake or exploration on an ambiguous requirement; map the blast radius first.
- Commit or push only on explicit user request; never print or commit secrets.
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.

