issue-action
Skill68 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Implement an approved plan for a gstack-game GitHub issue. Reads deep-dive artifacts, creates feature branch, executes plan steps, runs build+test, creates PR. Run after /issue-plan when plan is approved.
- Commits and pushes
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- fagemx/eddatheir own version, first seen Sep 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- fagemx/edda★ 36same name
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- contribute-reviewSkill
- issue-createSkill
- issue-pipelineSkill
- issue-planSkill
- pr-review-loopSkill
- skill-reviewSkill
- gstack-gameSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
27 rules. About 0 are common, 22 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈22
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
If no issue ID found, ask: "Which issue are you implementing?
- Distinctive: line 20
You MUST use TodoWrite to track progress: Create this todo list at START:
- Distinctive: line 27
Run build and tests
- Very specific: line 48
If plan.md doesn't exist, STOP: "No plan found.
- Very specific: line 50
Read artifacts in order: plan.md → research.md → innovate.md
- Distinctive: line 62
Check for new comments since plan was posted.
- Distinctive: line 88
If status unclear, ask user: "The plan has comments.
- Distinctive: line 102
If branch already exists, ask user: reuse or create new?
- Distinctive: line 110
Read the step description
- Distinctive: line 112
Verify the change is correct
- Distinctive: line 113
Commit with conventional message:
- Distinctive: line 126
Every new section needs: explicit scoring OR forcing questions
- Very specific: line 127
Every new section needs: AUTO/ASK/ESCALATE classification
- Distinctive: line 134
If contradicting existing content: flag both values, don't pick sides
- Distinctive: line 138
Must have frontmatter: name, description, user_invocable
- Very specific: line 139
Must include {{PREAMBLE}} after frontmatter
- Very specific: line 140
Must include Review Log with {{SKILL_NAME}}
- Distinctive: line 141
Must include Save Artifact section
- Distinctive: line 142
Must include Completion Summary
- Distinctive: line 151
If tests fail: fix immediately before continuing.
- Distinctive: line 167
All must pass. If any fail:
- Distinctive: line 183
Create PR with structured body:
- Distinctive: line 242
Verify all 8 todos are completed: before exiting.
- Distinctive: line 248
If blocked during implementation:
- Distinctive: line 251
Add "planned" label back (signals waiting for input)
- Distinctive: line 258
Test failure that requires architectural understanding
- Distinctive: line 287
ESCALATE: Test failures not covered by plan, cross-skill impact discovered, domain contradiction found during implementation
≈ “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
<!-- Internal maintenance skill — edit this file directly -->/issue-action: Implement from Approved Plan
Continue working on a gstack-game GitHub issue by implementing the approved plan from /issue-plan.
Arguments
Parse $ARGUMENTS to get the issue ID. If provided, use it. Otherwise, look for the issue ID from conversation context (from prior /issue-plan invocation).
If no issue ID found, ask: "Which issue are you implementing? Provide the issue number."
Task Tracking (CRITICAL)
You MUST use TodoWrite to track progress. Create this todo list at START:
- Retrieve context and artifacts
- Fetch latest issue updates
- Remove planned label
- Analyze feedback
- Execute implementation
- Run build and tests
- Create PR
- Post completion to issue
Update after completing each step.
Step 1: Retrieve Context and Artifacts
Locate deep-dive artifacts:
ls .tmp/deep-dive/issue-{id}/ 2>/dev/nullVerify existence of:
research.md— Research phase outputinnovate.md— Innovation phase outputplan.md— Implementation plan (REQUIRED)
If plan.md doesn't exist, STOP: "No plan found. Run /issue-plan {id} first."
Read artifacts in order: plan.md → research.md → innovate.md
Update todo: Mark completed.
Step 2: Fetch Latest Issue Updates
gh issue view {issue-id} --json title,body,comments,labelsCheck for new comments since plan was posted.
Update todo: Mark completed.
Step 3: Remove Planned Label
Signal that work is resuming:
gh issue edit {issue-id} --remove-label "planned"Update todo: Mark completed.
Step 4: Analyze Feedback
Review any new comments on the issue for:
- Plan approved (explicit approval or no objections) → Proceed to Step 5
- Changes requested → Update
plan.md, post revised plan, add "planned" label back, EXIT - Questions asked → Answer in comment, add "planned" label back, EXIT
- Plan rejected → Post acknowledgment, EXIT
If status unclear, ask user: "The plan has comments. Should I proceed with implementation, or address the feedback first?"
Update todo: Mark completed.
Step 5: Execute Implementation
5a: Create Feature Branch
git checkout -b feature/issue-{id}-{short-description}If branch already exists, ask user: reuse or create new?
5b: Follow Plan Steps
Implement EXACTLY what plan.md specifies. Do NOT deviate without user approval.
For each step in the plan:
- Read the step description
- Make the change (edit
.tmpl, addreferences/, etc.) - Verify the change is correct
- Commit with conventional message:
git add <specific-files>
git commit -m "<type>(skill-name): <description>
Implements step N of issue #{id} plan"gstack-game Specific Implementation Rules
Template changes (.tmpl files):
- Edit the
.tmpl, never the generated.md - Every new section needs: explicit scoring OR forcing questions
- Every new section needs: AUTO/ASK/ESCALATE classification
- Anti-sycophancy: add forbidden phrases for new review dimensions
- End sections with
**STOP.** One issue per AskUserQuestion.
References changes (references/*.md):
- Pure markdown, no template placeholders
- Each file should be self-contained and readable independently
- If contradicting existing content: flag both values, don't pick sides
- Include evidence attribution (source, contributor expertise)
New skills:
- Must have frontmatter: name, description, user_invocable
- Must include
{{PREAMBLE}}after frontmatter - Must include Review Log with
{{SKILL_NAME}} - Must include Save Artifact section
- Must include Completion Summary
After EACH change:
bun run build # Regenerate SKILL.md (if .tmpl changed)
bun test # Verify nothing brokeIf tests fail: fix immediately before continuing. Do NOT accumulate broken changes.
Update todo: Mark "Execute implementation" as completed after all plan steps done.
Step 6: Run Build and Tests
Full verification after all changes:
bun run build
bun test
bun run gen:skill-docs:checkAll must pass. If any fail:
- Diagnose the failure
- Fix the issue
- Re-run until all pass
- Commit the fix
Update todo: Mark completed.
Step 7: Create PR
git push -u origin feature/issue-{id}-{short-description}Create PR with structured body:
gh pr create \
--title "<type>(skill-name): <description>" \
--body "$(cat <<'PREOF'
## Summary
Implements plan for #<issue-id>.
### Changes
- <file 1> — <what changed>
- <file 2> — <what changed>
### Deep-dive artifacts
- Research: posted to issue as comment
- Innovation: posted to issue as comment
- Plan: posted to issue as comment
### Verification
- [x] `bun run build` passes
- [x] `bun test` passes (all 11 tests)
- [x] `bun run gen:skill-docs:check` — no drift
- [ ] Manual walkthrough (reviewer)
### Domain Confidence
<HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — from plan>
Closes #<issue-id>
PREOF
)"PR title prefixes:
feat(skill-name):— new skill or major enhancementfix(skill-name):— wrong content, broken behaviordocs:— documentation onlyrefactor(skill-name):— restructuring without behavior changeimprove(skill-name):— domain knowledge addition (benchmarks, gotchas, forcing questions)
Update todo: Mark completed.
Step 8: Post Completion to Issue
gh issue comment {issue-id} --body "Implementation complete. PR created: <pr-url>
All checks passing:
- \`bun run build\` ✅
- \`bun test\` ✅ (11/11)
- \`bun run gen:skill-docs:check\` ✅
Ready for review."Update todo: Mark completed.
Verify all 8 todos are completed before exiting.
Handling Blocks
If blocked during implementation:
- Post comment to issue explaining what's blocked and why
- Add "planned" label back (signals waiting for input)
- Tell user what's needed
- EXIT — do not continue past the block
Common blocks:
- Domain knowledge needed (issue says "inflation rate > 1.2" but no evidence for what threshold is correct)
- Cross-skill impact discovered (change affects skills not covered in plan)
- Test failure that requires architectural understanding
- Contradictory requirements
Label Management
| Action | When |
| Remove "planned" | When starting implementation (Step 3) |
| Add "planned" back | When blocked, waiting for feedback, or changes requested |
| Keep issue open | Always — user closes after merging PR |
Anti-Sycophancy
Forbidden:
- ❌ "Easy fix"
- ❌ "Quick change"
- ❌ "This should work"
- ❌ "Simple implementation"
Instead: State what was done, what was verified, and what risks remain. "Changed the economy scoring formula in /balance-review to add genre-conditional idle game handling. All 11 tests pass. The new threshold (inflation rate < session_length × prestige_frequency) needs validation against real idle game data — domain confidence is MEDIUM."
AUTO/ASK/ESCALATE
- AUTO: File edits following plan exactly,
bun run build,bun test, git operations, PR creation - ASK: Deviation from plan needed, ambiguous plan step, multiple valid interpretations
- ESCALATE: Test failures not covered by plan, cross-skill impact discovered, domain contradiction found during implementation
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.

