run-feature-workflow
Skill38 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run Feature Workflow
In this repository101 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/autonomous_execution.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/cursor_rules_editing.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/cursor_rules_sync.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/cursor_rules_sync_requirement.mdcCursor rule
- site_pages/llms.txtllms.txt
- advisorySkill
- analyzeSkill
- auditSkill
- commitSkill
- create-planSkill
- create_planSkill
- create-prototypeSkill
- create_prototypeSkill
- create_prSkill
- create-releaseSkill
- create_releaseSkill
- create-ruleSkill
- create_ruleSkill
- debugSkill
- draft-illustrationSkill
- draft_illustrationSkill
- endSkill
- evaluate_positioningSkill
- final-reviewSkill
- final_reviewSkill
- fix-feature-bugSkill
- fix_feature_bugSkill
- learnSkill
- manage-error-debuggingSkill
- manage_error_debuggingSkill
- neversight_learn_skills.dev_obviously_awesomeSkill
- process_issuesSkill
- process_prsSkill
- publish-planSkill
- publish_planSkill
- publishSkill
- pullSkill
- pushSkill
- recover_sqlite_databaseSkill
- releaseSkill
- report-errorSkill
- report_errorSkill
- reportSkill
- reviewSkill
- run_feature_workflowSkill
- setup-commandsSkill
- setup_commandsSkill
- setup-cursor-copiesSkill
- setup_cursor_copiesSkill
- store-neotomaSkill
- store_neotomaSkill
- sync-env-from-1passwordSkill
- sync_env_from_1passwordSkill
- analyzeSkill
- auditSkill
- commitSkill
- create-planSkill
- create-prototypeSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
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
- Very specific: line 24
Read foundation-config.yaml to get feature unit settings
- Distinctive: line 41
Update spec/manifest if ambiguous
- Very specific: line 42
Update code/tests/docs together
- Distinctive: line 43
Follow architectural invariants (from repo-specific docs)
- Distinctive: line 50
Verify coverage meets configured targets
- Distinctive: line 54
Do NOT attempt to fix bugs inline
- Distinctive: line 56
After bugfix completes, re-run the test suite
- Distinctive: line 57
Only proceed to step 6 once all tests pass
- Distinctive: line 63
Before producing the final summary:
- Distinctive: line 73
Do NOT proceed to final summary until spec and implementation are aligned (either by updating spec or fixing implementation)
≈ “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
<!-- Source: foundation/.cursor/skills/run-feature-workflow/SKILL.md -->name: run-feature-workflow description: Run feature workflow per foundation command. triggers:
- run feature workflow
- /run_feature_workflow
- run-feature-workflow
Run Feature Workflow
feature_id = {{input:feature_id}}
Configuration is read from foundation-config.yaml.
- Load configuration:
- Read
foundation-config.yamlto get feature unit settings - Determine directory structure, manifest complexity, testing requirements
- Read
- Read authoritative documents:
foundation/development/feature_unit_workflow.md(workflow context){configured_directory}/in_progress/{{input:feature_id}}/{{input:feature_id}}_spec.md(orcompleted/if completed){configured_directory}/in_progress/{{input:feature_id}}/manifest.yaml(orcompleted/if completed)foundation/development/templates/feature_unit_spec_template.md- Repository-specific execution instructions (if they exist)
- Repository-specific architecture/module documentation (based on spec)
- Determine risk level:
- low → skip plan
- medium → produce brief structured plan
- high/critical → produce detailed plan and wait for user approval
- Apply Feature Unit execution principles:
- Update spec/manifest if ambiguous
- Update code/tests/docs together
- Follow architectural invariants (from repo-specific docs)
- Preserve accessibility and i18n rules (if applicable)
Run tests (based on configuration):
- Unit tests (if
testing.require_unit_tests: true) - Integration tests (if
testing.require_integration_tests: true) - E2E tests (if
testing.require_e2e_tests: true) - Verify coverage meets configured targets
If any tests fail:
- Immediately invoke
Fix Feature Bugwith feature_id={{input:feature_id}} - Do NOT attempt to fix bugs inline
- Let the error protocol classify and correct
- After bugfix completes, re-run the test suite
- Only proceed to step 6 once all tests pass
- Unit tests (if
- Apply error protocol (if repository has one) only if bugs were encountered and fixed via step 5.
Spec-to-Implementation Diff Checkpoint (CRITICAL):
Before producing the final summary:
- Compare the implemented code against the spec
- List any ways implementation intentionally diverged from spec (even if small)
- For each divergence:
- Either update the spec to reflect the change (if divergence is intentional and correct)
- Or mark the divergence as a bug to be fixed (if divergence is unintentional)
- Present this diff to the user:
- "Implementation vs Spec Diff: [list of divergences]"
- "For each divergence, should I update the spec or fix the implementation? (spec/implementation/list)"
- Do NOT proceed to final summary until spec and implementation are aligned (either by updating spec or fixing implementation)
- Produce a final change summary:
- feature_id
- files changed
- risk
- error_class (if bugfix)
- tests run
- coverage achieved
Inputs
feature_id(string): The feature_id to work on.
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.

