incremental-implementation
Skill9 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when executing an approved multi-file implementation to ensure each batch compiles, tests, and stays within the approved manifest.
77 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLStheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- anotherben/claude-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- celestialdust/achilles-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- steven123397/nexuskit-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use constraint-driven-development, deprecation-and-migration and 8 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.
MrCipherSmithSkillconstraint-driven-development
Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.
Also in 14 projects that use this
HK-hubSkilldeprecation-and-migration
Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code.
Also in 36 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillobservability-and-instrumentation
Instruments code so production behavior is visible and diagnosable. Use when adding logging, metrics, tracing, or alerting. Use when shipping any feature that runs in production and you need evidence it works. Use when production issues are reported but you can't tell what happened from the available data.
Also in 29 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkilldoubt-driven-development
對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查(找碴不背書),在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用:高風險改動(production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作)、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。
Also in 33 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkillinterview-me
需求不明時的意圖萃取訪談:一次一題、每題附上自己的猜測、聽出「真正想要 vs 覺得應該要」,直到能預測使用者反應(約 95% 信心)才動工。適用:需求缺少對象 / 動機 / 成功標準 / 約束,或使用者點名「訪談我」「先確認一下」「我們確定嗎」。明確自足的指示、純資訊查詢、機械性操作不適用。
Also in 30 projects that use this
thunderkdsSkillreview-diff
Generate a Markdown review file with C4 architecture diagrams and code walkthrough for the current git changes
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from HK-hub
Other versions77 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 77
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 114ksame name
- ollaya-dev/ollaya★ 1.4ksame name
- shashankswe2020-ux/whoop-mcp★ 174same name
- vinvcn/addyosmani-agent-skills-zh★ 46same name
- jmxt3/gitscape.ai★ 33same name
- sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 27same name
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 22same name
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skills★ 21same name
- huytd/skills★ 19same name
- robisson/build-like-amazon-agent-skills★ 16same name
67 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 repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- batch-fixSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- fixSkill
- handoffSkill
- implementSkill
- instructionsSkill
- lessonsSkill
- mtk-doctorSkill
- mtk-setupSkill
- mtkSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- pre-commit-reviewSkill
- prior-work-checkSkill
- promote-lessonSkill
- repo-healthSkill
- research-contextSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- setup-auditSkill
- setup-bootstrapSkill
- setup-refreshSkill
- spec-drift-detectionSkill
- spec-driven-developmentSkill
- subagent-implementationSkill
- tech-stack-dotnetSkill
- tech-stack-pythonSkill
- tech-stack-typescriptSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- workflow-artifactsSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 72 edited versions we read keep these.
10
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 30
Before each batch, re-read the shared references that batch's files match (context-engineering step 3).
- Distinctive: line 32
Write the tests in the same batch, failing first where the batch adds or fixes behavior (see Batch policy below).
- Very specific: line 33
Run the batch checkpoint using the build and test commands from the active tech stack skill's ## Build & Test Commands.
- Very specific: line 34
Capture analyzer output: Write the build output to a log, then feed the log to the build diagnostics parser.
- Distinctive: line 46
If the parser resolves nowhere, skip this step.
- Very specific: line 47
Read .claude/references/pre-commit-review-list.md if present and fix any violations immediately.
- Distinctive: line 50
Run the pre-commit review list if present
- Very specific: line 52
If the count exceeds the halt threshold without a review, stop and run compliance-reviewer before continuing.
- Distinctive: line 54
After all batches, run the full test command from the tech stack and write an explicit behavioral diff.
- Very specific: line 76
Tests: test level per the stack skill's ## Test Level Guidance.
- Distinctive: line 77
Uncertain library behavior: read the dependency's real exception/return surface from local source before trusting the call.
- Distinctive: line 82
Never touch a file outside the manifest without re-planning.
- Distinctive: line 83
Never defer all tests to the end.
- Distinctive: line 84
Never continue across batches on a failing build.
- Distinctive: line 86
Keep changes rollback-friendly and dependency-focused.
- Distinctive: line 87
Do not mix unrelated cleanup into implementation batches.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 72 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
Incremental Implementation
Overview
Implement in thin slices. Each slice must compile, test, and remain explainable before moving on.
When To Use
- Any approved multi-file implementation
- Refactors that still require verification
- Any task where the cost of late failure is high
When NOT To Use
- Single-file, single-function changes already minimal enough for the fix workflow
Workflow
- Before each batch, re-read the shared references that batch's files match (
context-engineeringstep 3). - Implement only the files listed for the batch, with the smallest correct change.
- Write the tests in the same batch, failing first where the batch adds or fixes behavior (see Batch policy below).
- Run the batch checkpoint using the build and test commands from the active tech stack skill's
## Build & Test Commands. - Capture analyzer output. Write the build output to a log, then feed the log
to the build diagnostics parser. (No
tee /dev/tty: agent shells have no terminal, so it fails.) The parser ships with the plugin; resolve it plugin-first, then the project copy:
Surface any critical analyzer findings immediately — they block the batch just like build failures. Warning-level findings carry forward to the pre-commit review. If the parser resolves nowhere, skip this step.# Example for .NET (adapt command from tech stack skill's Build & Test Commands): PBD="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/parse-build-diagnostics.sh"; [ -f "$PBD" ] || PBD=hooks/parse-build-diagnostics.sh mkdir -p .mtk; rc=0; dotnet build > .mtk/build.log 2>&1 || rc=$?; tail -n 30 .mtk/build.log [ -f "$PBD" ] && bash "$PBD" --file .mtk/build.log > .mtk/analyzer-output.json; [ "$rc" -eq 0 ] - Read
.claude/references/pre-commit-review-list.mdif present and fix any violations immediately. - Mark the batch complete in
tasks/todo.md. Record the per-batch gate decision and progress on the workflow artifact in the same shell call as the checkpoint test run —<test cmd> && "$WFA" batch "$MTK_WF_UUID" gate phase_exit_gate pass --reason "batch <id> green" -- set results.batches_completed=<n> -- checkpoint --next "<next batch id: intent>" --verify "<test cmd> => <result>"(checkpointmust be the LAST op; exit 3 means--nextnames a finished unit — fix it and re-runcheckpointalone; on red:|| "$WFA" gate … fail …to trigger remediation). A standalone bookkeeping turn is a wasted turn. Also checkpoint when a PR is opened, before waiting on a usage limit (--wait-until <ISO>), and when the context guard nudges. See.claude/references/orchestration-gates.md. - Churn check: After completing each batch, run
git diff --statand count net lines changed since the last review (intermediate or Phase 4), excluding generated and mechanical files — lockfiles,*.Designer.cs,*.g.cs,*.generated.*, EF migration snapshots,*.min.js/*.min.css, built bundle output (e.g.wwwroot/dist/**). Generated churn is not review load. Thresholds areMTK_CHURN_REVIEW_LINES(default 300) andMTK_CHURN_HALT_LINES(default 500); at rigor HIGH/MAX — the subagent path or the inline-MAX profile — the defaults double to 600/1000, because every batch there is already isolated and drift-checked and a full two-stage review is guaranteed at Phase 4, so the mid-run review is a safety net, not the primary review. If the count exceeds the review threshold, pause and trigger an early review checkpoint:- Run the pre-commit review list if present
- Assess whether the scope is still within the approved manifest
- If the count exceeds the halt threshold without a review, stop and run
compliance-reviewerbefore continuing; the count resets after that review - This catches large unplanned changes mid-implementation rather than at the end
- After all batches, run the full test command from the tech stack and write an explicit behavioral diff.
- Append the
implementsection to the JSON handoff artifact atdocs/specs/<date>-<slug>.json. Schema:.claude/schemas/handoff.schema.json. Required keys:
Be honest about deviations —"implement": { "actual_files": ["..."], // git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD "completed_batches": ["B1","B2"], "deviations": [ { "kind": "extra-file", "detail": "src/Helper.cs", "justification": "needed to unblock B2; spec did not anticipate" } ], "behavioral_diff": "..." }spec-drift-detectionwill diffchange_manifestagainstactual_filesregardless. Runbash scripts/validate-handoff.sh docs/specs/<date>-<slug>.jsonto surface drift before handing off to review.
Batch policy
- Tests: test level per the stack skill's
## Test Level Guidance; never an in-memory provider to prove database semantics (constraints, transactions, query translation). A bug fix gets a test that failed before the fix. - Uncertain library behavior: read the dependency's real exception/return surface from local source before trusting the call; surface whatever stays unverified.
- Isolation at HIGH/MAX: recommend a dedicated worktree before Phase 3 (Claude Code's native
EnterWorktree, orisolation: "worktree"on implementerAgentcalls) and pin the branch: recordgit branch --show-currentat the gate and re-check it before every batch checkpoint. A branch switch in a shared checkout mid-run is a stop, not a warning.
Rules
- Never touch a file outside the manifest without re-planning.
- Never defer all tests to the end.
- Never continue across batches on a failing build.
- New public behavior must be test-covered.
- Keep changes rollback-friendly and dependency-focused.
- Do not mix unrelated cleanup into implementation batches.
Verification
- Each batch compiles and tests cleanly before the next begins
- Full solution tests pass at the end
- Behavioral diff is explicit and matches the request
- No files outside the approved manifest were touched without re-planning
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.

