large-change
Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Structured workflow for implementing a large or complex change. Use when: planning a significant feature, decomposing a multi-day refactor, introducing a breaking change, coordinating cross-cutting implementation work, or shipping a new subsystem with phased delivery and clear release criteria.
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-testingSkill
- alternatives-analysisSkill
- anomaly-detectionSkill
- api-designSkill
- async-messagingSkill
- caching-strategiesSkill
- chartsSkill
- cicdSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commsSkill
- critical-feedbackSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- databaseSkill
- data-migrationsSkill
- data-visualizationSkill
- dependency-managementSkill
- dockerSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- feature-flagsSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- goalsSkill
- ide-setupSkill
- logging-metricsSkill
- markdown-docsSkill
- mcp-serverSkill
- meeting-agendasSkill
- okrsSkill
- presentationsSkill
- product-managementSkill
- prompt-writingSkill
- pythonSkill
- reclassificationSkill
- release-managementSkill
- retrospectivesSkill
- roadmap-planningSkill
- securitySkill
- stakeholder-commsSkill
- statisticsSkill
- status-updatesSkill
- testingSkill
- ticket-writingSkill
- typescriptSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 25
When not to use: small, self-contained changes that can be completed and tested in one short session.
- Distinctive: line 32
Before implementation, write a design doc.
- Distinctive: line 38
Create a durable rationale for future maintainers
- Very specific: line 42
Create in docs/changes/<feature-name>.md or docs/adr/<nnnn>-<title>.md:
- Distinctive: line 101
Before implementation begins, confirm the design answers:
- Distinctive: line 120
Prefer vertical slices (thin end-to-end paths) over horizontal layers.
- Distinctive: line 122
If task text contains and, consider splitting it.
- Distinctive: line 123
Every increment should leave the default branch stable.
- Distinctive: line 167
Run lint/format checks
- Distinctive: line 169
Commit with conventional commit format
- Distinctive: line 172
Use feature flags for long-running features that cannot ship all at once.
- Distinctive: line 176
Keep PRs focused and reviewable
- Distinctive: line 178
Do not merge failing CI
- Distinctive: line 184
When all planned tasks are complete, run a release checklist.
≈ “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
Large Change Workflow
When to Use
- A feature or refactor spans many files or multiple days of work
- Multiple valid approaches exist and design needs to be explicit
- Several developers need to coordinate against one plan
- A breaking change is involved (API removal, rename, behavior change)
- A new subsystem or integration is being introduced
- The change crosses layers (data, API, UI, infra)
When not to use: small, self-contained changes that can be completed and tested in one short session.
Phase 1: Design Document
Before implementation, write a design doc.
Purpose:
- Align on what is being built and why
- Compare alternatives before implementation lock-in
- Surface risks and unknowns early
- Create a durable rationale for future maintainers
Design Doc Template
Create in docs/changes/<feature-name>.md or docs/adr/<nnnn>-<title>.md:
# Design: <Feature or Change Name>
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Status**: Draft | Proposed | Accepted
**Author(s)**: <name>
## Problem
What problem does this change solve?
## Goals
- [ ] Goal 1
- [ ] Goal 2
## Non-Goals
- Not changing X
- Not supporting Y in this version
## Proposed Approach
Describe the selected solution, affected components, data flow, API/interface
changes, and dependencies.
## Alternatives Considered
Use a structured alternatives comparison:
| Option | Pros | Cons | Why not chosen |
|--------|------|------|----------------|
| Option A (chosen) | ... | ... | - |
| Option B | ... | ... | ... |
| Option C | ... | ... | ... |
## Risks and Open Questions
- [ ] Risk: <risk and mitigation>
- [ ] Open question: <question>
## Implementation Plan
High-level phases or milestones.
## Testing Strategy
What tests are required?
## Release Plan
- Version bump: PATCH / MINOR / MAJOR
- Breaking migration required: Yes / No
- Feature flag needed: Yes / No
- Rollback strategy: <describe>Before implementation begins, confirm the design answers:
- What is being built and why
- Why this approach was chosen over alternatives
- Key risks and mitigations
- Release strategy
Phase 2: Task Decomposition
Break work into small, independently shippable tasks.
A task is well-sized when:
- It fits one focused session (roughly 4 hours or less)
- It maps to one conventional commit subject
- The codebase remains buildable and testable after completion
Decomposition Rules
- Prefer vertical slices (thin end-to-end paths) over horizontal layers.
- Split deprecation and removal into separate tasks for breaking changes.
- If task text contains and, consider splitting it.
- Every increment should leave the default branch stable.
Task List Template
## Tasks
### Phase 1: Foundation
- [ ] Add data model changes
- [ ] Implement base service/repository
- [ ] Add unit tests for new core logic
### Phase 2: Integration
- [ ] Add endpoint/adapter layer integration
- [ ] Add input validation and error handling
- [ ] Add integration tests
### Phase 3: UX/Consumer
- [ ] Add UI/client integration
- [ ] Add behavior/state tests
- [ ] Add end-to-end flow test
### Phase 4: Cleanup and Release
- [ ] Remove deprecated paths
- [ ] Update migration docs
- [ ] Update changelog and versionPhase 3: Incremental Development
Execute tasks one at a time.
Each completed task should:
- Pass tests
- Pass linting/formatting
- Pass type checks (if applicable)
- Land as one logical commit
Single-Task Loop
- Implement one task
- Run relevant tests
- Run lint/format checks
- Run type checks
- Commit with conventional commit format
- Mark the task done
Use feature flags for long-running features that cannot ship all at once.
PR Sizing
- Keep PRs focused and reviewable
- Split very large diffs into phase-based PRs when possible
- Do not merge failing CI
Phase 4: Release
When all planned tasks are complete, run a release checklist.
Pre-Release Checklist
- All planned tasks are complete
- Full test suite passes
- Linting, formatting, and type checks are clean
- Docs and migration notes are updated
- Version and changelog are updated
- Rollback plan is documented
Versioning Guidance
| Change type | Bump |
| Backward-incompatible behavior/API change | MAJOR |
| Backward-compatible feature | MINOR |
| Bug fix or internal improvements only | PATCH |
Release Notes Structure
- Breaking changes
- Features and fixes
- Internal/refactor/test/docs updates
Phase 5: Post-Implementation Cleanup
After release:
- Update design doc status to Accepted
- Document deferred follow-up work
- Archive/supersede outdated ADRs if needed
- Run a short retrospective for large, complex changes
Quick Reference
| Phase | Output |
| 1. Design | Design doc or ADR |
| 2. Decompose | Task list with clear increments |
| 3. Implement | Stable incremental commits |
| 4. Release | Versioned release with notes |
| 5. Cleanup | Updated docs and follow-up plan |
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it hurts | Better approach |
| Design-as-you-go on major changes | High risk of late rework | Write and review design first |
| One giant implementation commit | Hard to review and rollback | One logical change per commit |
| Pure horizontal decomposition | No shippable value until late | Use vertical slices |
| Skipping tests between tasks | Broken state accumulates | Validate after every task |
| Deferring docs until the end | Docs drift from implementation | Update docs within each phase |
| Treating version bump as clerical | Mis-signaled impact to users | Define release plan in design |
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.

