agentleFS
mikheilkuzmidimikheilkuzmidi/build-project/SKILL.md

build-project

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Build or take over an application, website, or software project from a user idea through authoritative research, durable project records, implementation, testing, and local verification. Use only when explicitly invoked with $build-project for end-to-end project work; do not use for small isolated edits.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions4 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 4

    1. rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch★ 78ksame name
    2. fancyboi999/ai-engineering-from-scratch-zh★ 1.3ksame name
    3. seqra/opentaint★ 172same name
    4. Shri-Phnx/claude-skills★ 2same 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.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 10

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before intake, read intake and autonomy.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    When creating or changing project guidance, architecture, design, or code organization, read project records and design.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Before research, dependency work, testing, verification, or final reporting, read quality and safety.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not start material implementation until the user answers required human decisions or explicitly delegates eligible technical choices …

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    After intake, proceed autonomously through local research, implementation, tests, builds, and local browser verification.

    line 22
  6. Distinctive:

    Ask immediately when a newly discovered decision blocks correct work.

    line 23
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not deploy, publish, spend money, create external accounts, send communications, consume paid or limited external verification, or use …

    line 24
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not report completion while required checks fail, required records are stale, or mandatory user decisions remain unresolved.

    line 25
  9. Distinctive:

    Keep user-facing prose direct and concrete.

    line 31
  10. Distinctive:

    Done: all acceptance criteria and required gates pass locally.

    line 41

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Build Project

Deliver a coherent, locally verified project without making product-defining decisions for the user. Use the repository itself as evidence and preserve its working conventions unless the user asks to change them.

Read the right reference

  • Before intake, read intake and autonomy.
  • When creating or changing project guidance, architecture, design, or code organization, read project records and design.
  • Before research, dependency work, testing, verification, or final reporting, read quality and safety.

Operating contract

  1. Inspect the repository before asking questions. Reuse facts that are already clear from source, configuration, tests, and current documentation.
  2. Present all presently knowable questions in a numbered initial intake. State the total number, ask one decision per question in plain language, explain the recommended option, and show how many remain. Offer: Answer all non-human decisions automatically.
  3. Do not start material implementation until the user answers required human decisions or explicitly delegates eligible technical choices through auto mode.
  4. After intake, proceed autonomously through local research, implementation, tests, builds, and local browser verification. Do not repeatedly ask for ordinary engineering choices.
  5. Ask immediately when a newly discovered decision blocks correct work. Defer non-blocking decisions to the finalization batch.
  6. Do not deploy, publish, spend money, create external accounts, send communications, consume paid or limited external verification, or use production credentials or data without explicit approval.
  7. Do not report completion while required checks fail, required records are stale, or mandatory user decisions remain unresolved.

Build behavior

  • Establish measurable acceptance criteria before implementing stable behavior. Write tests before or alongside the implementation they specify. Do not rewrite correct tests merely to accept faulty code.
  • Research current technical facts from primary sources. Record links, retrieved dates, versions, and decisions instead of downloading entire third-party manuals.
  • Keep user-facing prose direct and concrete. Do not use em dashes unless the user explicitly asks for them. Avoid generic marketing filler and unsupported claims.
  • For interfaces, translate the approved direction into tokens, reusable components, and named variants. Do not copy a living designer's style or solve a local need with an unexplained one-off override.
  • Organize code by stable responsibilities and domain boundaries. Keep shared abstractions small and intentional; do not create a shared layer merely because two files look similar.

Continuity and finalization

Create or update the project records described in the project-records reference. Treat AGENTS.md as a stable map to current records, and keep CLAUDE.md as a one-line pointer to it. When a decision or architecture changes, update the current record, mark the old decision superseded, audit for stale instructions, and re-run affected checks.

At the end, summarize delivered behavior, verification evidence, remaining limitations, and any final decisions. Use one of these outcomes exactly in substance:

  • Done: all acceptance criteria and required gates pass locally.
  • Implemented, but mandatory decisions remain: explain the minimum questions required to finalize safely.

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.