agentleFS
moberghrmoberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/.claude/skills/incremental-implementation/SKILL.md

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

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.
  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    constraint-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-hubSkill

    deprecation-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-hubSkill

    observability-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

  • seikaikyoSkill

    doubt-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

  • seikaikyoSkill

    interview-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

  • thunderkdsSkill

    review-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

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
  1. Very specific:

    Before each batch, re-read the shared references that batch's files match (context-engineering step 3).

    line 30
  2. Distinctive:

    Write the tests in the same batch, failing first where the batch adds or fixes behavior (see Batch policy below).

    line 32
  3. Very specific:

    Run the batch checkpoint using the build and test commands from the active tech stack skill's ## Build & Test Commands.

    line 33
  4. Very specific:

    Capture analyzer output: Write the build output to a log, then feed the log to the build diagnostics parser.

    line 34
  5. Distinctive:

    If the parser resolves nowhere, skip this step.

    line 46
  6. Very specific:

    Read .claude/references/pre-commit-review-list.md if present and fix any violations immediately.

    line 47
  7. Distinctive:

    Run the pre-commit review list if present

    line 50
  8. Very specific:

    If the count exceeds the halt threshold without a review, stop and run compliance-reviewer before continuing.

    line 52
  9. Distinctive:

    After all batches, run the full test command from the tech stack and write an explicit behavioral diff.

    line 54
  10. Very specific:

    Tests: test level per the stack skill's ## Test Level Guidance.

    line 76
  11. Distinctive:

    Uncertain library behavior: read the dependency's real exception/return surface from local source before trusting the call.

    line 77
  12. Distinctive:

    Never touch a file outside the manifest without re-planning.

    line 82
  13. Distinctive:

    Never defer all tests to the end.

    line 83
  14. Distinctive:

    Never continue across batches on a failing build.

    line 84
  15. Distinctive:

    Keep changes rollback-friendly and dependency-focused.

    line 86
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not mix unrelated cleanup into implementation batches.

    line 87

“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.

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

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

  1. Before each batch, re-read the shared references that batch's files match (context-engineering step 3).
  2. Implement only the files listed for the batch, with the smallest correct change.
  3. Write the tests in the same batch, failing first where the batch adds or fixes behavior (see Batch policy below).
  4. Run the batch checkpoint using the build and test commands from the active tech stack skill's ## Build & Test Commands.
  5. 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:
    # 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 ]
    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.
  6. Read .claude/references/pre-commit-review-list.md if present and fix any violations immediately.
  7. 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>" (checkpoint must be the LAST op; exit 3 means --next names a finished unit — fix it and re-run checkpoint alone; 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.
  8. Churn check: After completing each batch, run git diff --stat and 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 are MTK_CHURN_REVIEW_LINES (default 300) and MTK_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-reviewer before continuing; the count resets after that review
    • This catches large unplanned changes mid-implementation rather than at the end
  9. After all batches, run the full test command from the tech stack and write an explicit behavioral diff.
  10. Append the implement section to the JSON handoff artifact at docs/specs/<date>-<slug>.json. Schema: .claude/schemas/handoff.schema.json. Required keys:
    "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": "..."
    }
    Be honest about deviations — spec-drift-detection will diff change_manifest against actual_files regardless. Run bash scripts/validate-handoff.sh docs/specs/<date>-<slug>.json to 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, or isolation: "worktree" on implementer Agent calls) and pin the branch: record git branch --show-current at 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

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.