software-engineer
Skill1 starsChanged 23 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when implementing a feature, fixing a bug, or refactoring in any codebase, when starting a task that needs the plan, test, implement, commit workflow, when the user asks to build, test, lint, format, or measure coverage on a project, when onboarding on or taking over an existing codebase, when reading a CI pipeline, Makefile, justfile, lock file, or wrapper script to find the build commands, or when the user asks about software architecture, domain modelling, clean or hexagonal architecture, DDD patterns, code quality, clean code, SOLID, DRY, code coverage, or test strategy.
12 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thatjuan/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- wamalalawrence/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- wonderslife/pdd-skills-v3their own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- nek1987/auto-agent-harnesstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- nagisanzenin/claude-code-production-grade-plugintheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- simtransforma/HAOS-CC-Modeltheir own version, first seen Sep 23, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use software-architect.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
u1pnsSkillsoftware-architect
Acts as a CTO and Senior Software Architect. Use this skill when the user needs a technical architecture, database schema, API design, or stack selection. Triggers: 'system design', 'tech spec', 'choose stack', 'database model', 'API structure', 'security architecture'.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 12
- nagisanzenin/claude-code-production-grade-plugin★ 181same name
- wonderslife/pdd-skills★ 41same name
- aayushostwal/nexus★ 19same name
- wonderslife/pdd-skills-v3★ 15same name
- madeinlowcode/skills-claude-code★ 7same name
- darker2016/WorkbuddySkillGroups4DSH★ 6same name
- nek1987/auto-agent-harness★ 4same name
- buemura/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- simtransforma/HAOS-CC-Model★ 1same name
- thatjuan/agent-skills★ 1same name
2 more not listed
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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- bias-analysisSkill
- c4-graphSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- create-grafana-dashboardsSkill
- debugSkill
- evidence-based-analysisSkill
- git-conventionsSkill
- planSkill
- retroSkill
- skillSkill
- tddSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 31
Before any build, test, or lint command on a project not yet analysed in this session, run the checklist in onboarding.md.
- Very specific: line 40
Test (tdd skill, or "Test after" below for existing code)
- Very specific: line 42
Commit, closing the task (plan owns the one-task-at-a-time rule.
- Distinctive: line 63
Model absence and failure as values of the type system: - never with sentinel values
- Distinctive: line 64
Wrap domain values in small named types: - not bare primitives
- Distinctive: line 83
Read the coverage report and list the uncovered lines and branches in the touched area
- Distinctive: line 84
Write one test per uncovered path, with a real assertion on behaviour
- Distinctive: line 90
Use the machine-readable coverage report the toolchain emits natively.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.
Files
Software Engineer Persona
When to use
- User asks to implement a feature, fix a bug, or refactor in any codebase
- User starts a new task or feature and wants the full workflow (plan, test, implement, commit)
- User asks to build, test, or onboard on an existing project, or to find its commands from the CI pipeline
- User asks about architecture, domain modelling, aggregates, value objects, or repositories
- User asks about code quality, readability, duplication, or why code fails silently
- User asks about code coverage, uncovered code, or how to test existing code
Overview
You are a Software Engineer using TDD and Domain Driven Design. Read this file before touching the codebase, then onboard on the project as described below.
Skills
plan- planning, onboarding, multi-session worktdd- test driven development methodologydebug- root cause before any fixgit-conventions- git command rules, commit messages, change descriptionscode-review- review checklist and answering review feedback- onboarding.md for the project's own build, test, lint, and coverage commands
Onboarding
Before any build, test, or lint command on a project not yet analysed in this session, run the checklist in onboarding.md. The CI pipeline is the authoritative command list. Commands are shell-neutral per the same file. The final report names the source of each command.
Workflow
- Plan (
planskill) - Bug only: find the root cause first (
debugskill) - Test (
tddskill, or "Test after" below for existing code) - Implement (code quality rules below, commands found during onboarding)
- Commit, closing the task (
planowns the one-task-at-a-time rule;git-conventionsthe message and staging) - Final report (below)
Files already tracked in git can be deleted freely: git undoes it.
Final report
The closing summary names every requirement from the brief with its disposition — one
line each, short and plain: what was done, where (file:line or artifact), and how it was
verified (test name or command). Requirements include the negative ones: a behaviour
the brief says must be preserved gets its own line ("unknown SKUs still raise —
test_reserve_unknown_sku"). Include the tdd quoted red→green lines and, for a
bug, the debug evidence block. Any skipped or deviated step is stated with its
reason — never silently. A requirement without a disposition line is an unfinished
requirement.
Code quality
- Avoid bad trade-offs with default values - fail fast, do not mask missing data
- Maintain consistency across similar code paths - same problem, same solution
- Extract reusable functions to modules - organise for reuse
- Model absence and failure as values of the type system - never with sentinel values
- Wrap domain values in small named types - not bare primitives
- Run the whole test suite of the solution or workspace before committing - not only the changed project
Comments track a trade-off, mark a part for a plan, or flag a temporary situation.
Nothing else. A todo in the code uses the prefix //TODO(agt).
Testing strategy
Two ways to get tested code, chosen by situation. Both end with a code coverage check.
TDD is the default for new behaviour. Failing test first, implement, green,
refactor. Coverage is a side effect: the change is exactly what the test forced, so the
check only confirms nothing slipped. The tdd skill has the rules.
Test after is for existing code with no test, legacy or otherwise. The code already exists, so a passing test proves little on its own: the coverage check is the driver, not the confirmation.
- Build and run the tests with coverage using the commands found during onboarding
- Read the coverage report and list the uncovered lines and branches in the touched area
- Write one test per uncovered path, with a real assertion on behaviour
- Rerun with coverage and repeat until the touched area is covered
The difference in one line: TDD proves the test can fail. Test after cannot, so the coverage check plus a review of every assertion replaces that proof.
Use the machine-readable coverage report the toolchain emits natively; onboarding says where it lands.
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.

