agentleFS
emaraschioemaraschio/cursor-commands/.cursor/skill-contracts/requirement-to-implementation/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the Memory Bank to ground yourself in project state:

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    If any file is missing or stale, note it.

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    Use exploratory subagents for broad investigations.

    line 45
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask 4-6 clarifying questions if ambiguities remain.

    line 76
  5. Very specific:

    After each meaningful change, run the project's test command for affected paths (for example npm test, pytest, go test ./..., bundle exec …

    line 98
  6. Distinctive:

    Follow existing patterns found in Phase 2

    line 102
  7. Distinctive:

    Check lints after substantive edits

    line 104
  8. Distinctive:

    If a step reveals the plan was wrong, stop and re-plan with the user

    line 105
  9. Distinctive:

    After implementation is complete and verified:

    line 109
  10. Very specific:

    Update .cursor/memory-bank/systemPatterns.md: if new patterns were introduced

    line 113
  11. Very specific:

    Update .cursor/memory-bank/techContext.md: if tech stack or constraints changed

    line 114
  12. Distinctive:

    Cardinal rule: No implementation without an approved plan.

    line 124
  13. Distinctive:

    No implementation without an approved plan: present the plan and wait for explicit approval before writing production code.

    line 128
  14. Distinctive:

    Do not skip intake or exploration on an ambiguous requirement.

    line 129
  15. Distinctive:

    Commit or push only on explicit user request.

    line 130

≈ “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

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.

SourceAction
Notion ticketUse Notion MCP to fetch ticket details, acceptance criteria, and linked context
GitHub issueUse gh issue view to pull title, body, labels, and linked PRs
ConversationExtract the requirement from what the user described
Sentry issueUse 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:

  1. .cursor/memory-bank/projectbrief.md: scope and goals
  2. .cursor/memory-bank/productContext.md: product context
  3. .cursor/memory-bank/techContext.md: tech stack and constraints
  4. .cursor/memory-bank/systemPatterns.md: architecture and patterns
  5. .cursor/user-memory-bank/activeContext.md: current focus
  6. .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:

  1. Identify affected files: entry points, services, APIs, jobs, UI, tests
  2. Read existing patterns: find similar implementations to follow
  3. Spot risks: PII/sensitive data exposure, authorization gaps, integration side effects, migration needs
  4. 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

  1. Create a TodoWrite task list mirroring the approved plan's changes
  2. Mark each todo in_progress as you begin it, completed when done
  3. Work step by step: one todo at a time, verifying as you go

Verification (flexible per task)

Choose the verification approach that fits:

Task TypeApproach
Bug fixWrite a failing test first, then fix, then verify it passes
New featureImplement, then write specs covering happy path + edge cases
RefactorEnsure existing specs still pass, add specs for new behavior
PerformanceBenchmark before/after, verify no regression in specs
ChoreVerify 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:

  1. Update .cursor/user-memory-bank/activeContext.md: reflect current focus and recent changes
  2. Update .cursor/user-memory-bank/progress.md: mark what's done, note what's next
  3. Update .cursor/memory-bank/systemPatterns.md: if new patterns were introduced
  4. 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.

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.