agentleFS
madeincartelmadeincartel/claude-code-framework/skills/feature-execution/SKILL.md

feature-execution

Skill1 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub

Orchestrate feature delivery as team lead: spawn agents by wave, manage review cycles (max 3 rounds), commit per wave.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

23 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 12

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read checkpoint, then read work/{feature}/decisions.md to confirm what was actually completed.

    line 19
  2. Very specific:

    Check if ~/.claude/teams/{team_name}/config.json exists: if yes, team is alive.

    line 22
  3. Very specific:

    Read work/{feature}/tech-spec.md and work/{feature}/user-spec.md

    line 27
  4. Very specific:

    Read frontmatter of all task files in work/{feature}/tasks/ — extract fields:

    line 28
  5. Distinctive:

    Create team via TeamCreate

    line 45
  6. Very specific:

    Update work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml: set total_waves from the execution plan.

    line 46
  7. Very specific:

    Update frontmatter: status: planned → status: in_progress

    line 53
  8. Very specific:

    Use teammate_name from task frontmatter as the agent name.

    line 56
  9. Very specific:

    If task has reviewers: none — skip reviewer spawning.

    line 100
  10. Distinctive:

    All agents work in parallel.

    line 123
  11. Distinctive:

    All clean → proceed to Final Wave

    line 137
  12. Distinctive:

    When lead spawns an agent outside the original execution plan (to fix audit findings, handle escalations, complete missing work):

    line 142
  13. Distinctive:

    Checkpoint: all teammates reported "Task complete", decisions.md entries written.

    line 155
  14. Very specific:

    Verify decisions.md entries exist and match template (~/.claude/shared/work-templates/decisions.md.template)

    line 159
  15. Distinctive:

    If task had Smoke/User verification steps — confirm decisions.md Verification section includes results.

    line 160
  16. Very specific:

    Update task frontmatter: status: in_progress → status: done

    line 161
  17. Very specific:

    Update work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml: set last_completed_wave, update task statuses, set next_wave.

    line 163
  18. Distinctive:

    Checkpoint: all wave tasks done, committed, checkpoint updated.

    line 166
  19. Distinctive:

    All waves done including Final Wave (QA, deploy if applicable, post-deploy verification if applicable).

    line 170
  20. Very specific:

    All ok → finalize, shutdown team, delete work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml

    line 175
  21. Distinctive:

    Stop all work on the blocked task/wave

    line 185
  22. Distinctive:

    Write decisions.md entry: summary of attempts + unresolved findings

    line 187
  23. Distinctive:

    Wait for user decision before continuing

    line 189

≈ “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

Feature Execution

Team lead orchestrates feature delivery. You are a dispatcher: spawn agents, track progress, commit code, escalate issues. Delegate all code reading, diff analysis, and report review to spawned agents. Your only inputs are status messages from teammates ("Task complete") and escalation requests.

Phase 1: Initialization

  1. Check work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml:
    • last_completed_wave > 0 → this is a resume after context compaction. Read checkpoint, then read work/{feature}/decisions.md to confirm what was actually completed. For tasks in the resumed wave: if a task has a decisions.md entry, it completed — update its frontmatter to done and skip it. Only re-execute tasks without a decisions.md entry. Check if ~/.claude/teams/{team_name}/config.json exists: if yes, team is alive; if no, recreate via TeamCreate. Skip to Phase 2 starting from next_wave. Report to user: "Resuming from wave {N}. Waves 1-{N-1} completed."
    • last_completed_wave: 0 → fresh start, proceed below.
  2. Read work/{feature}/tech-spec.md and work/{feature}/user-spec.md
  3. Read frontmatter of all task files in work/{feature}/tasks/ — extract fields:

    FieldPurpose
    statusplanned → in_progress → done
    waveParallel execution group number
    depends_onTask numbers that must be done first
    skillsSkills the teammate loads
    reviewersReviewer agents to spawn (source of truth)
    teammate_nameAgent name for team spawning (optional)
    verifyVerification types: [smoke], [user], [smoke, user], or [] (optional)

    Build waves: group tasks by wave field. Within a wave, all tasks run in parallel.

  4. Build execution plan following template at ~/.claude/shared/work-templates/execution-plan.md.template
  5. Save to work/{feature}/logs/execution-plan.md
  6. Show plan to user, wait for approval
  7. Create team via TeamCreate
  8. Update work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml: set total_waves from the execution plan.

Checkpoint: execution plan approved, team created, checkpoint initialized.

Phase 2: Execute Wave

  1. Find tasks for current wave: status: planned, all depends_on tasks are done
  2. Update frontmatter: status: planned → status: in_progress
  3. For each task, spawn teammate + reviewers (if task has reviewers):

    Use teammate_name from task frontmatter as the agent name. If not set — pick a descriptive name based on the task.

    Teammate — subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus", team_name: "{team}"

    Prompt template:

    You are "{name}" executing task {N}.
    
    Read task: {feature_dir}/tasks/{N}.md
    Load skills listed in task frontmatter. Follow the loaded skill workflow.
    
    If the task requires user actions — send the instruction to team lead via SendMessage.
    Team lead will forward to user and return confirmation.
    
    {reviewers_block}
    
    After task complete:
    - Write entry to {feature_dir}/decisions.md (follow template at ~/.claude/shared/work-templates/decisions.md.template).
      Summary: 1-3 sentences describing what was done and key decisions. Link JSON reports for review details.
    - Message team lead: "Task {N} complete. decisions.md updated."
    
    Feature dir: {feature_dir}

    {reviewers_block} — include only when task has reviewers (not reviewers: none):

    Your reviewers: {reviewer_names} (list of teammate names).
    
    Review process — after task is complete, follow this review process (overrides review steps from loaded skills):
    1. Run `git diff -- <your files>` and collect the list of changed files + full diff output.
    2. Send each reviewer via SendMessage: list of changed files + full diff output.
    3. Reviewers will perform review, write JSON report to `{feature_dir}/logs/working/task-{N}/{reviewer_name}-round{round}.json`, and send report path back to you.
    4. Read reports, fix findings. After fixes: send updated diff to reviewers for next round.
    5. Max 3 review rounds. Reason: diminishing returns — if 3 rounds cannot resolve findings, the issue requires human judgment. If unresolved after 3 → message team lead to escalate.
    
    Commit flow:
    1. After implementation complete (tests pass): git commit `feat|fix: task {N} — {brief description}`
    2. Send diff to reviewers for review.
    3. After each round of fixes (tests pass): git commit `fix: address review round {M} for task {N}`
    4. After all reviews pass (or max 3 rounds): git commit review reports with message `chore: review reports for task {N}`

    If task has reviewers: none — skip reviewer spawning. The teammate works independently, commits code with message feat|fix: task {N} — {brief description} (tests pass), and reports completion directly to team lead.

    Each reviewer (when present) — subagent_type: "{reviewer_agent}", model: "sonnet", team_name: "{team}"

    Prompt template:

    You are reviewer "{name}" for task {N}.
    
    Read specs: {feature_dir}/user-spec.md, {feature_dir}/tech-spec.md
    Read task: {feature_dir}/tasks/{N}.md
    
    Wait for a message from teammate "{teammate_name}" with git diff of changes.
    
    When you receive it:
    1. Perform your review based on the changed files list and diff provided
    2. Write JSON report to: {feature_dir}/logs/working/task-{N}/{reviewer_name}-round{round}.json
    3. Send report path to teammate "{teammate_name}" via SendMessage
    
    The teammate may send updated diffs for subsequent rounds (max 3).
    Review each round the same way. After the final round, shut down.
  4. All agents work in parallel. Lead waits for teammates to report "Task complete."

Audit Wave tasks

Audit Wave tasks (Code Audit, Security Audit, Test Audit) have reviewers: none — each auditor teammate IS the review. Spawn them as standard teammates (general-purpose, opus), each loads its methodology skill.

Each auditor:

  • Reads decisions.md to understand what was done in each task
  • Reads all source files listed in tech-spec "Files to modify" across all implementation tasks
  • Reviews the final state of code holistically (full files, not diffs)
  • Writes report to {feature_dir}/logs/working/audit/{auditor-name}.json
  • Writes decisions.md entry, reports to lead

After all 3 reports:

  • All clean → proceed to Final Wave
  • Issues found → spawn a fixer teammate (ad-hoc, code-writing skill), assign the auditors who found issues as reviewers, standard review protocol (max 3 rounds). After approval → proceed to Final Wave. If unresolved after 3 rounds → escalate (see Escalation).

Ad-hoc agents

When lead spawns an agent outside the original execution plan (to fix audit findings, handle escalations, complete missing work):

  1. Lead assigns a skill and reviewers matching the type of work:
    • Code changes → skill: code-writing, reviewers: code-reviewer, security-auditor, test-reviewer
    • Prompt changes → skill: prompt-master, reviewers: prompt-reviewer
    • Skill changes → skill: skill-master, reviewers: skill-checker
    • Deploy/CI changes → skill: deploy-pipeline, reviewers: deploy-reviewer
    • Infrastructure changes → skill: infrastructure-setup, reviewers: infrastructure-reviewer, security-auditor
    • Other tasks (research, config, manual steps) → no skill, no reviewers. Agent follows lead's instructions directly.
  2. The ad-hoc agent writes a decisions.md entry (same template as planned tasks)
  3. Standard review protocol: agent commits → sends diff to reviewers → fix → max 3 rounds
  4. Lead verifies decisions.md entry exists before considering ad-hoc work complete

Checkpoint: all teammates reported "Task complete", decisions.md entries written.

Phase 3: Wave Transition

  1. Verify decisions.md entries exist and match template (~/.claude/shared/work-templates/decisions.md.template)
  2. If task had Smoke/User verification steps — confirm decisions.md Verification section includes results. Missing results without explanation → ask user whether to proceed.
  3. Update task frontmatter: status: in_progress → status: done
  4. Git commit: chore: complete wave {N} — update task statuses and decisions. Code is already committed by teammates.
  5. Update work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml: set last_completed_wave, update task statuses, set next_wave.
  6. Next wave → Phase 2

Checkpoint: all wave tasks done, committed, checkpoint updated.

Phase 4: User Review

All waves done including Final Wave (QA, deploy if applicable, post-deploy verification if applicable).

  1. Show results: what was built, key decisions, QA report summary
  2. Describe what to check manually (from execution plan "user checks" section)
  3. Issues found → fix → review → commit (max 3 rounds). If unresolved → escalate (see Escalation).
  4. All ok → finalize, shutdown team, delete work/{feature}/logs/checkpoint.yml

Escalation

Call user when:

  • 3 review/fix iterations exhausted with remaining findings
  • Teammate reports blocker or ambiguous requirement
  • Task depends on unavailable MCP tool or external service

When escalating:

  1. Stop all work on the blocked task/wave
  2. Report to user: what failed, what was tried (all 3 attempts), what remains unresolved
  3. Write decisions.md entry: summary of attempts + unresolved findings
  4. Git commit: chore: escalate task {N} — unresolved after 3 fix rounds
  5. Wait for user decision before continuing

Self-Verification

  • Execution plan created and approved
  • All tasks executed, reviewed where applicable (max 3 iterations each), decisions.md filled
  • All waves committed (including Final Wave)
  • User reviewed and approved

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.