agentleFS
fagemxfagemx/gstack-game/.claude/skills/issue-action/SKILL.md

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

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    If no issue ID found, ask: "Which issue are you implementing?

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    You MUST use TodoWrite to track progress: Create this todo list at START:

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Run build and tests

    line 27
  4. Very specific:

    If plan.md doesn't exist, STOP: "No plan found.

    line 48
  5. Very specific:

    Read artifacts in order: plan.md → research.md → innovate.md

    line 50
  6. Distinctive:

    Check for new comments since plan was posted.

    line 62
  7. Distinctive:

    If status unclear, ask user: "The plan has comments.

    line 88
  8. Distinctive:

    If branch already exists, ask user: reuse or create new?

    line 102
  9. Distinctive:

    Read the step description

    line 110
  10. Distinctive:

    Verify the change is correct

    line 112
  11. Distinctive:

    Commit with conventional message:

    line 113
  12. Distinctive:

    Every new section needs: explicit scoring OR forcing questions

    line 126
  13. Very specific:

    Every new section needs: AUTO/ASK/ESCALATE classification

    line 127
  14. Distinctive:

    If contradicting existing content: flag both values, don't pick sides

    line 134
  15. Distinctive:

    Must have frontmatter: name, description, user_invocable

    line 138
  16. Very specific:

    Must include {{PREAMBLE}} after frontmatter

    line 139
  17. Very specific:

    Must include Review Log with {{SKILL_NAME}}

    line 140
  18. Distinctive:

    Must include Save Artifact section

    line 141
  19. Distinctive:

    Must include Completion Summary

    line 142
  20. Distinctive:

    If tests fail: fix immediately before continuing.

    line 151
  21. Distinctive:

    All must pass. If any fail:

    line 167
  22. Distinctive:

    Create PR with structured body:

    line 183
  23. Distinctive:

    Verify all 8 todos are completed: before exiting.

    line 242
  24. Distinctive:

    If blocked during implementation:

    line 248
  25. Distinctive:

    Add "planned" label back (signals waiting for input)

    line 251
  26. Distinctive:

    Test failure that requires architectural understanding

    line 258
  27. Distinctive:

    ESCALATE: Test failures not covered by plan, cross-skill impact discovered, domain contradiction found during implementation

    line 287

≈ “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
<!-- 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:

  1. Retrieve context and artifacts
  2. Fetch latest issue updates
  3. Remove planned label
  4. Analyze feedback
  5. Execute implementation
  6. Run build and tests
  7. Create PR
  8. 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/null

Verify existence of:

  • research.md — Research phase output
  • innovate.md — Innovation phase output
  • plan.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,labels

Check 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:

  1. Read the step description
  2. Make the change (edit .tmpl, add references/, etc.)
  3. Verify the change is correct
  4. 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 broke

If 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:check

All 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 enhancement
  • fix(skill-name): — wrong content, broken behavior
  • docs: — documentation only
  • refactor(skill-name): — restructuring without behavior change
  • improve(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:

  1. Post comment to issue explaining what's blocked and why
  2. Add "planned" label back (signals waiting for input)
  3. Tell user what's needed
  4. 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

ActionWhen
Remove "planned"When starting implementation (Step 3)
Add "planned" backWhen blocked, waiting for feedback, or changes requested
Keep issue openAlways — 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

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.