agentleFS
Sign inStart free
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/implement/SKILL.md

implement

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Build scoped code changes and run verification from an approved specification or plan. Use when a concrete spec, approved plan, or set of tickets is ready to implement, when the user asks to build or code a planned feature, or when executing tasks — even if they don't explicitly say \"implement\". Do NOT use for initial architecture exploration or vague requirements.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 170 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    Distinctive

    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:

    Approved Plan or Spec First: Never start broad implementation on ambiguous or unapproved specs.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Continuous Typecheck & Test Verification: Run local typechecks and single test files after every file modification, and the full suite …

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Zero Dead or Speculative Code: Write strictly the code required to satisfy the spec.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Action: Read the spec or ticket descriptions, inspect referenced files, and verify the existing test suite passes cleanly.

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Key Point: Never begin adding new features to a broken or failing baseline.

    line 46
  6. Distinctive:

    Key Point: Keep edits contained and avoid touching unrelated modules.

    line 51
  7. Distinctive:

    Action: Run the complete project test suite, typechecker, and linter across the entire repository.

    line 58
  8. Distinctive:

    Key Point: Write a clear, value-communicating commit message summarizing the change.

    line 64

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 170 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Implement

Execute scoped code changes and thorough verification from an approved specification, plan, or ticket set.

Core Principle

Implement incrementally via vertical tracer slices, verify at each step, and maintain a green build at every seam.

Core Invariants

  1. Approved Plan or Spec First: Never start broad implementation on ambiguous or unapproved specs.
  2. Vertical Slice Progress: Implement in small, testable tracer slices rather than mass horizontal file edits.
  3. Continuous Typecheck & Test Verification: Run local typechecks and single test files after every file modification, and the full suite before completion.
  4. Pre-Commit Quality Gate: Pass clean code review (code-review) and lint checks before committing.
  5. Zero Dead or Speculative Code: Write strictly the code required to satisfy the spec; avoid speculative abstractions.

Architecture & Map of Content (MOC)

[ Review Approved Spec ] ──► [ Order Tracer Slices ] ──► [ TDD Cycle per Slice ] ──► [ Full Suite Verification ] ──► [ Code Review & Commit ]
PhaseResponsibilityKey Action
1. PreparationRead spec, identify dependencies, check existing test seamsVerify repo builds cleanly before touching code
2. Tracer ExecutionImplement slice-by-slice with TDDRed-green cycles on target components
3. Continuous CheckFast feedback on type errors and single testsRun targeted test runner after each edit
4. Integration GateEnd-to-end regression validationFull test suite, linter, and typecheck pass
5. DeliveryReview diff against standards and specRoute to code-review and clean commit

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Ingest Spec & Verify Baseline Cleanliness

  • Action: Read the spec or ticket descriptions, inspect referenced files, and verify the existing test suite passes cleanly.
  • Key Point: Never begin adding new features to a broken or failing baseline.
  • Why: Existing failures confound regression detection for new changes.

Step 2: Implement via Vertical Slices (TDD)

  • Action: For each ticket or component, write failing assertions at public seams, then implement minimal passing logic.
  • Key Point: Keep edits contained and avoid touching unrelated modules.
  • Inline Checklist:
    • Public seam identified and tested
    • Typecheck passes without errors
    • Targeted test passes cleanly

Step 3: Full Test Suite & Quality Verification

  • Action: Run the complete project test suite, typechecker, and linter across the entire repository.
  • Key Point: Zero failures, zero unexpected warnings, zero unformatted files.
  • Why: Changes in one module can subtly break downstream consumers.

Step 4: Code Review & Final Commit

  • Action: Audit the git diff against repository coding standards and original requirements using code-review.
  • Key Point: Write a clear, value-communicating commit message summarizing the change.
  • Why: Durable commit histories preserve architectural reasoning for future maintainers.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"I'll edit all 10 files at once before testing anything."Vertical tracer slicing: verify each file/unit immediately.Massive multi-file edits make errors difficult to isolate and debug.
"Typechecks are slow, I'll run them at the very end."Run fast targeted checks continuously.Catching type errors early prevents building on flawed data signatures.
"The existing test suite was failing before, so ignore it."Establish clean baseline before modifying code.Unaccounted failures hide new regressions introduced by the feature.
"Skip code review since the code runs fine."Mandatory diff review against spec and standards.Functional code can still violate repository conventions and security standards.

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.

Check your setup, free