dev-new-tool
Skill15 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
End-to-end workflow for taking a new tool idea from research to working MVP. Use when the user has an idea for a CLI tool, library, or small project and wants to go from concept to initial implementation. Triggers on "I have an idea for a tool", "build a new CLI", "create a new project", "kickoff new tool", "I want to build", "let's build a new", "新しいツールを作りたい", "CLIを作る".
In this repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- claude-permissions-auditSkill
- claude-skill-orchestration-auditSkill
- claude-skill-prereq-auditSkill
- claude-skill-spec-auditSkill
- dev-cli-consistency-auditSkill
- dev-code-qualitySkill
- dev-software-designSkill
- gh-dep-pr-triageSkill
- gh-issue-reportSkill
- gh-org-chartSkill
- gh-oss-go-bumpSkill
- gh-oss-release-prepSkill
- gh-oss-releaseSkill
- gh-review-triageSkill
- git-conventional-commitSkill
- gws-meeting-schedulerSkill
- p-activity-digestSkill
- p-blog-post-miningSkill
- p-blog-writerSkill
- p-clipboard-copySkill
- p-daily-reflectionSkill
- p-daily-reportSkill
- p-daily-standupSkill
- p-ego-searchSkill
- p-md-to-slidesSkill
- p-meeting-prepSkill
- p-news-briefingSkill
- project-namerSkill
- p-slack-triageSkill
- p-violentmonkey-userscript-syncSkill
- restaurant-searchSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
20 rules. About 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈19
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 32
Clarify the idea: Ask what problem the tool solves, who uses it, and what the core workflow looks like
- Distinctive: line 38
API/Integration research: If the tool integrates with external services, research their APIs:
- Distinctive: line 69
Goal: Create an executable implementation plan.
- Very specific: line 71
Write a plan file to the repo (.claude/plans/[project-name].md or a location the user specifies)
- Distinctive: line 79
Keep the plan concise — under 100 lines.
- Distinctive: line 93
Write tests alongside implementation (not after)
- Distinctive: line 94
Commit at logical checkpoints
- Distinctive: line 95
If a step gets complex, break it down further
- Distinctive: line 96
Verify: Run the full test suite, lint, and build before moving on
- Distinctive: line 102
README: Write a README with:
- Distinctive: line 107
CLI help: Ensure all commands have proper help text and examples
- Distinctive: line 108
License: Add an appropriate license file (default: MIT unless user specifies)
- Distinctive: line 109
Final review: Run a quick scan:
- Distinctive: line 111
Check for hardcoded paths or secrets
- Distinctive: line 112
Verify README matches actual CLI interface
- Distinctive: line 118
If the user wants just research: Stop after Phase 1
- Distinctive: line 123
Prefer simplicity in v1. The user can always add features later.
- Distinctive: line 125
Always verify with web search before recommending libraries — check for maintenance status and compatibility.
- Distinctive: line 126
Use conventional commits during implementation.
- Distinctive: line 127
Don't over-engineer: no feature flags, no plugin systems, no config file formats beyond what's needed for v1.
≈ “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
New Tool Kickoff
A structured workflow for turning a tool idea into a working MVP. Covers the full cycle: research existing solutions, brainstorm approach, write a plan, scaffold the project, build core features, and write documentation.
When to Use
- User says "I have an idea for a tool/CLI/library"
- User wants to start a new project from scratch
- User wants to research feasibility before building
- Greenfield development of a focused tool or CLI
Workflow
Phase 1: Research (Stop point: get user approval before Phase 2)
Goal: Understand the landscape before building.
- Clarify the idea: Ask what problem the tool solves, who uses it, and what the core workflow looks like
- Search for existing tools: Web search for similar tools, libraries, or CLIs
- Evaluate alternatives: For each existing tool found:
- What does it do well?
- What gaps or limitations does it have?
- Is it actively maintained?
- API/Integration research: If the tool integrates with external services, research their APIs:
- Authentication methods
- Rate limits and pagination
- Data models and available endpoints
- Present findings: Summarize as a brief landscape overview:
- Existing tools and their limitations
- API capabilities (if applicable)
- Recommended approach based on findings
Ask the user: "Based on this research, should we proceed with building? Any adjustments to the concept?"
Phase 2: Brainstorm & Design (Stop point: get user approval before Phase 3)
Goal: Nail down the approach before writing code.
- Core features: Identify the minimum set of features for a useful v1
- Technology choices: Recommend language, frameworks, and key dependencies based on:
- User's preferences and existing projects
- Tool requirements (CLI, TUI, web, library)
- Available ecosystem (Go for CLI tools, TypeScript for Node ecosystem, etc.)
- Interface design: Define the user-facing interface:
- CLI: command structure, flags, arguments
- Library: public API surface
- TUI: key bindings, views
- Architecture sketch: High-level component breakdown (keep it simple — avoid over-engineering)
- Name the project: Suggest a name if the user hasn't chosen one (or invoke the
project-namerskill)
Ask the user: "Here's the proposed design. What adjustments?"
Phase 3: Plan
Goal: Create an executable implementation plan.
- Write a plan file to the repo (
.claude/plans/[project-name].mdor a location the user specifies) - The plan should include:
- Goal: One-sentence summary
- Scope: What's in v1, what's deferred
- Steps: Numbered implementation steps with clear deliverables
- File structure: Expected project layout
- Dependencies: Key libraries to use
- Test strategy: What to test and how
- Keep the plan concise — under 100 lines. The plan is a contract, not a design doc.
Ask the user: "Plan is ready. Proceed with implementation?"
Phase 4: Scaffold & Build
Goal: Get to a working MVP.
- Initialize project:
- Create directory structure
- Initialize module/package (go mod init, npm init, etc.)
- Set up linting and formatting config
- Create .gitignore
- Implement core features: Work through plan steps in order
- Write tests alongside implementation (not after)
- Commit at logical checkpoints
- If a step gets complex, break it down further
- Verify: Run the full test suite, lint, and build before moving on
Phase 5: Polish & Document
Goal: Make the tool usable by others.
- README: Write a README with:
- Clear description and tagline
- Installation instructions
- Quick start / usage examples
- Configuration reference (if applicable)
- CLI help: Ensure all commands have proper help text and examples
- License: Add an appropriate license file (default: MIT unless user specifies)
- Final review: Run a quick scan:
go vet/eslint/ equivalent for the language- Check for hardcoded paths or secrets
- Verify README matches actual CLI interface
Adapting the Workflow
- If the user already researched: Skip Phase 1, start at Phase 2
- If the user has a plan: Skip to Phase 4
- If the user wants just research: Stop after Phase 1
- If adding to existing project: Skip scaffolding in Phase 4, focus on the new feature
Tips
- Prefer simplicity in v1. The user can always add features later.
- For CLI tools, the user prefers Go with cobra/viper patterns.
- Always verify with web search before recommending libraries — check for maintenance status and compatibility.
- Use conventional commits during implementation.
- Don't over-engineer: no feature flags, no plugin systems, no config file formats beyond what's needed for v1.
Examples
Example 1: CLI tool from idea
User: "I want to build a CLI tool for Slack using Go"
Action:
1. Research existing Slack CLI tools (slackcli, etc.)
2. Research Slack API capabilities
3. Brainstorm: core commands (messages, channels, search)
4. Plan: write implementation plan
5. Build: scaffold Go project, implement core commands
6. Document: write README with install + usageExample 2: Research only
User: "I'm thinking of creating some linter. Research if there's anything similar."
Action:
1. Search for existing linters in the relevant space
2. Compare features, limitations, maintenance status
3. Present findings and recommendation
4. Stop — wait for user to decide next stepsExample 3: Tool with external API
User: "I want to create a Fireflies CLI"
Action:
1. Research Fireflies API docs, authentication, endpoints
2. Research existing Fireflies integrations
3. Design: core features (list meetings, get transcript, action items)
4. Plan and build with API client as foundationDoes 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.

