implement
Skill1 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use to build an approved software change through the deliver loop: write, CI, repair, independent review, land. Not for unsettled scope (scope), root cause (diagnose), read-only review (code-review) or promotion (release).
191 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- revisit-studies/studytheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- dz114879/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dimon94/dveritytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Dimon94/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- The-Vibe-Company/quivrtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- miklschmidt/archboardtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use setup-ts-deep-modules, ask-matt and 10 more.
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.
liufeng1976Skillsetup-ts-deep-modules
Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.
Also in 43 projects that use this
GoogleSkillask-matt
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
Also in 91 projects that use this
RoentekSkillloop-me
Grill me about specs for the workflows I want to build, within this workspace.
Also in 50 projects that use this
AWSSkillto-questionnaire
Turn a decision you can't fully answer into a questionnaire for someone else to fill in.
Also in 88 projects that use this
ryotaroh180105Skillclaude-handoff
Hand the current conversation off to a fresh background agent that picks up the work immediately.
Also in 42 projects that use this
GoogleSkillto-spec
Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
Also in 168 projects that use this
- +3 more from google
Other versions191 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 191
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- foambubble/foam★ 17ksame name
- formbricks/formbricks★ 13ksame name
- ArcReel/ArcReel★ 6.3ksame name
- vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN★ 5.5ksame name
- fallow-rs/fallow★ 5.3ksame name
- withcoral/coral★ 4.9ksame name
- bestofjs/bestofjs★ 3.1ksame name
181 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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- code-reviewSkill
- deliverSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- engineering-docsSkill
- engineering-writingSkill
- evaluateSkill
- legal-writingSkill
- natural-writingSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- refactorSkill
- releaseSkill
- retrospectSkill
- scopeSkill
- sessionSkill
- setup-repoSkill
- skill-craftSkill
- test-designSkill
- trackerSkill
- ui-ux-designSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 171 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Use implement for a slice and deliver for the full delivery loop.
- Very specific: line 12
Start from an approved spec: outcome, acceptance criteria with how each is verified, non-goals, risk tier and write authority (the tracker …
- Distinctive: line 20
Read repository checks, commit rules and review floors in AGENTS.md and runbooks.
- Very specific: line 36
Run provenant run --route junior --file slice.toml --explain, then omit --explain to submit.
- Very specific: line 39
Check authority, write scopes and gates in the explanation, then submit without --explain.
- Very specific: line 45
Follow provenant status, collect provenant output TARGET, and use retry for unfinished work.
- Very specific: line 74
Update the owned docs in the same PR: behaviour, architecture, operations.
- Distinctive: line 76
Keep compatibility only for published or persisted contracts.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 171 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
Implement
Use implement for a slice and deliver for the full delivery loop.
Entry
Start from an approved spec: outcome, acceptance criteria with how each is
verified, non-goals, risk tier and write authority (the tracker issue or the
scope digest). Missing inputs go back to scope. Do not invent owner decisions;
record an engineering call as Decided (<source>): <reason> and proceed.
Show provenant tracker lint N advice before starting an issue unless already
supplied; unavailable checks do not block work.
Read repository checks, commit rules and review floors in AGENTS.md and
runbooks. Run targeted checks locally; leave full suites to CI.
How it runs
Register a writer worktree first (provenant worktree create slice --base BASE).
Save slice.toml, replacing the path, scope and brief:
use = "implement"
tier = "junior"
worktree = "/absolute/project/.worktrees/slice"
write_scope = ["src"]
brief = "Meet the approved criteria; run the named checks, commit and report."Run provenant run --route junior --file slice.toml --explain, then omit
--explain to submit.
Check authority, write scopes and gates in the explanation,
then submit without --explain. deliver is the default composite; use
implement for one slice, implement.fix for a known defect, and batch for
parallel slices into one integration branch. Use plan when the shape is open.
See templates.
Follow provenant status, collect provenant output TARGET, and use retry
for unfinished work. edit changes unstarted nodes. Landing uses
provenant land N --head SHA --wait after the integrated head meets its gates.
Writing the brief
The writer sees only the brief. Put in it the issue path, the acceptance
criteria, the files and owners already found, the checks to run, and the
instruction to stop and report instead of widening scope. One writer per
worktree. Name the method skill: test-design for observable behaviour,
refactor for restructuring, diagnose for an unknown cause.
A separate fresh writer attempt repairs qualified review findings; the raising
lenses re-review the delta. max_repair_cycles defaults to three and accepts
one to three, independently of the CI repair limit. A recurring finding or an
evidenced design defect escalates early to read-only principal scoping. Proceed
within approved scope: the principal records repair_design booleans
within_scope and one_way_door in its findings block. The host notifies the
owner and bypasses its decide wait only for explicit approved scope with no
one-way door. Changed scope, one-way doors and missing assessments wait on that
host decision before any continuation writer. Approval retains the original
literal write authority. A failed replanned panel feeds its qualified findings
into the remaining repair cycles. If no separate route is available, continue in a fresh
attempt on the available route with a recorded separation warning.
Writer rules
- The implementer may not edit a failing acceptance test or weaken an assertion to pass. A changed test is reported with the reason.
- Update the owned docs in the same PR: behaviour, architecture, operations. A
settled decision moves to its durable home (see
engineering-docs). - Keep compatibility only for published or persisted contracts. Otherwise change the callers and delete the old path.
- Report checks that did not run as unverified, never as passing.
- A repair that leaves failures unchanged or larger twice in a row stops the
run. Return the evidence to
scopewhen the spec turns out wrong.
Done
Exact-head CI and the review the tier requires meet acceptance. Finish with
the outcome report owned by deliver. Promotion needs separate authority
(release).
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.

