agentleFS
kuya-eggkuya-egg/Monozukuri/kata/SKILL.md

kata

Skill11 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Implement software through small, repeatable, integrated vertical slices with clear exit criteria and honest verification. Use when a design is understood and code needs to be built or changed.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. andermoreira/kata★ 1same name
    2. andrewn6/claude-code-101★ 1same 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Very specific:

    If the problem is still ambiguous, use nemawashi.

    line 21
  2. Very specific:

    When several slices are queued, take the smallest ready one first and end each at a verified checkpoint …

    line 42
  3. Distinctive:

    Run a focused check as soon as the slice can execute.

    line 59
  4. Distinctive:

    Read every changed line. Remove wrappers, comments, abstractions, branches, and configuration that do not serve the slice.

    line 65
  5. Distinctive:

    Run the relevant tests, type checks, lint, build, migration, or smoke checks.

    line 72
  6. Distinctive:

    Every verification claim must be traceable to an executed command, observed result, or authoritative evidence.

    line 79
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not broaden a slice because an unrelated cleanup is nearby.

    line 85
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not hide incomplete behavior behind a TODO when a smaller complete slice is possible.

    line 86
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not call generated code production-ready without reading and verifying it.

    line 88
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not preserve a bad pattern merely because it is old.

    line 89
  11. Distinctive:

    If a referenced skill is not installed, apply its named lens inline instead of trying to invoke it.

    line 98

≈ “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

Kata

Kata is a repeatable form practiced until good judgment becomes reliable. In software, use a small engineering routine: make one behavior real, verify it, learn from it, and then extend it. This is a Japanese-inspired metaphor for discipline, not a demand for ceremony.

Use this skill when

  • a requirement and design are sufficiently understood;
  • implementing a greenfield vertical slice;
  • adding a feature or changing existing behavior;
  • translating a decision into reviewable code; or
  • AI-generated output needs to be reduced to the smallest correct change.

If the problem is still ambiguous, use nemawashi. If the repository or environment is unknown, use genchi-genbutsu. If the design is overbuilt, use kanso first.

Outcome

Produce a focused, integrated change that:

  • implements one observable behavior or structural improvement;
  • follows local repository conventions;
  • has appropriate tests and failure handling;
  • leaves no generated or speculative excess;
  • has a clean, explainable diff; and
  • includes verification evidence and known residual risk.

Workflow

1. Define the slice

State the behavior, boundary, exit criterion, and files likely to change. Pick the smallest vertical path that proves the design through real interfaces. When several slices are queued, take the smallest ready one first and end each at a verified checkpoint (monozukuri-core/references/checkpoints.md).

2. Read before editing

Inspect neighboring implementations, callers, types, schemas, tests, and commands. Reuse existing behavior when it already solves the problem. Do not invent a parallel convention because it is easier to generate.

3. Build the narrow path

Implement the smallest complete behavior. Keep responsibilities cohesive, names explicit, and invalid states constrained. Add only dependencies and configuration justified by the requirement.

4. Integrate early

Run a focused check as soon as the slice can execute. Expand the slice only after the current behavior is understood and verified. Prefer several small integrations to a large batch of partially finished work.

5. Review generated work

Read every changed line. Remove wrappers, comments, abstractions, branches, and configuration that do not serve the slice. Compare the diff with the original request and inspect adjacent failure paths. Do not reformat untouched code or apply broad stylistic cleanup that obscures the behavior change.

6. Close the slice

Run the relevant tests, type checks, lint, build, migration, or smoke checks. Record what ran, what passed, what could not run, and what risk remains.

Evidence standard

Verification must match behavior and risk. A compile-only result does not prove runtime behavior; a passing happy-path test does not prove failure handling. Every verification claim must be traceable to an executed command, observed result, or authoritative evidence. Never report a check as passed unless it was actually run or directly observed.

Boundaries

  • Do not broaden a slice because an unrelated cleanup is nearby.
  • Do not hide incomplete behavior behind a TODO when a smaller complete slice is possible.
  • Do not call generated code production-ready without reading and verifying it.
  • Do not preserve a bad pattern merely because it is old; change it when the current slice gives a safe, relevant seam.

Handoff

End with the changed behavior, files, checks, and residual risk. Use poka-yoke to strengthen tests and boundaries, kodawari to review the diff, or shukka when the change is ready for release preparation.

If a referenced skill is not installed, apply its named lens inline instead of trying to invoke it.

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.