implement
Skill2 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub
Implement a requested change or completed spec with test-driven development and independent code review.
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 repository3 other files it gives its agents.
- release-versionSkill
- brainstormSkill
- debugSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
25 rules. 0 are common, 25 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 171 edited versions we read keep these.
25
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
- Distinctive: line 16
Use subagents only when useful, available, and permitted for bounded lookup, isolated auxiliary edits, extra checks, or read-only review.
- Distinctive: line 17
Keep product decisions, architecture, and acceptance of results with the main agent.
- Distinctive: line 24
Read the entire supplied spec and its required artifacts yourself.
- Distinctive: line 34
Start from a spec's Suggested slices.
- Distinctive: line 41
Follow this TDD cycle for behavioral changes, including delegated edits.
- Distinctive: line 43
Write one behavior-focused test through the agreed public seam.
- Distinctive: line 44
Run it and observe failure from missing behavior.
- Distinctive: line 46
Run the focused test and neighboring tests green.
- Distinctive: line 49
Write the least code that meets the contract.
- Distinctive: line 56
Do not mirror the production algorithm, mock the behavior under test, or weaken a correct test to pass.
- Distinctive: line 57
Avoid private-method tests, internal mocks, tautologies, conditional assertions, and checks that only assert no crash.
- Distinctive: line 58
Add a contrasting or boundary case when one example permits constant output, a hard-coded special case, or ignored input.
- Distinctive: line 63
Run focused tests and available typechecking during implementation.
- Distinctive: line 64
Before review, read the whole diff.
- Distinctive: line 65
After integration, run defined formatting, lint, typechecking, the full relevant test suite, and build.
- Distinctive: line 72
When delegation is available and permitted, give two reviewers the contract, rules, baseline, diff, changed files, and verification …
- Distinctive: line 73
Use reviewers who did not implement the changes.
- Distinctive: line 74
If delegation is unavailable or prohibited, review the two axes separately yourself and disclose the limitation.
- Distinctive: line 75
Requirements: check missing criteria, incorrect behavior, unsupported scope, and evidence at each public test seam.
- Distinctive: line 76
Code: check correctness, maintainability, security, concurrency, errors, conventions, and test quality.
- Distinctive: line 77
Ask what could be deleted or merged without changing behavior.
- Distinctive: line 78
Check that tests catch plausible violations.
- Distinctive: line 92
Verify each finding against the contract and code.
- Distinctive: line 100
Ensure final verification covers all review fixes.
- Distinctive: line 102
Do not commit, push, open a pull request, deploy, or publish unless requested.
“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
Deliver the requested change or supplied spec completely. Follow repository instructions and preserve unrelated user changes.
Working rules
- The main agent establishes the contract, plans behavior slices, implements core behavior, integrates changes, and verifies the result itself.
- Use subagents only when useful, available, and permitted for bounded lookup, isolated auxiliary edits, extra checks, or read-only review.
- Keep product decisions, architecture, and acceptance of results with the main agent. Handle small tasks directly.
- Give agents the contract, relevant rules, baseline, evidence, and explicit file ownership. Reuse them with updated context.
- Parallelize independent side tasks. Serialize writers unless files and dependencies are disjoint. Prohibit further delegation.
- Require concise findings, changed files, commands, outcomes, and uncertainties. Verify results and keep raw reports out of chat.
Step 1: Establish the contract
- Read the entire supplied spec and its required artifacts yourself. Otherwise use the current request as the contract.
- Identify observable acceptance criteria and public test seams. Ask only about unresolved material product decisions.
- Inspect repository rules, relevant code, prior decisions, and verification commands yourself. Confirm a spec's Where to change paths.
- Resolve material unknowns through inspection and primary-source research. Check dates, retain links, and distinguish assumptions.
- Reconcile evidence and record the starting Git ref, status, and relevant diff before mutations. Keep the agreed scope.
Step 2: Plan behavior slices
- Decide boundaries, dependencies, and risks yourself. Use focused side investigations when useful and verify their evidence.
- Divide work into small vertical slices, each delivering one observable behavior at an agreed public seam.
- Start from a spec's Suggested slices. Change them only when the code requires it, and say why.
- Name each slice's data shape first. Prefer one structure, such as a union, table, or state machine, over scattered conditionals.
Step 3: Implement with red and green tests
- Implement core behavior slices yourself. Delegate only isolated auxiliary edits with clear criteria, public seams, and file ownership.
- Auxiliary writers inspect the relevant source themselves before editing.
- Follow this TDD cycle for behavioral changes, including delegated edits. Inspect red/green evidence and integrate before dependent work.
- Write one behavior-focused test through the agreed public seam.
- Run it and observe failure from missing behavior. Setup, fixture, and syntax errors do not count as red.
- Make the smallest implementation that passes, without anticipating later slices.
- Run the focused test and neighboring tests green. Refactor while tests stay green.
- Repeat for the next behavior instead of writing a batch of tests ahead of implementation.
- Write the least code that meets the contract. Delete replaced paths, dead code, and redundant checks in touched code first.
- Reuse existing helpers. Add no abstraction, option, or wrapper without a current second caller.
- Validate external input once at its boundary. Do not recheck states that internal types already exclude.
- Replace an internal API by migrating its callers and deleting it in the same change. Add no compatibility shim.
- Comment only a non-obvious why that the code cannot show. No narration and no workaround justifications.
- Assert outcomes through the real public path using expected values from requirements, known literals, or worked examples.
- Do not mirror the production algorithm, mock the behavior under test, or weaken a correct test to pass.
- Avoid private-method tests, internal mocks, tautologies, conditional assertions, and checks that only assert no crash.
- Add a contrasting or boundary case when one example permits constant output, a hard-coded special case, or ignored input.
- Repair tests that pass without the behavior. Observe a valid red state before continuing that slice.
Step 4: Verify the implementation
- Run focused tests and available typechecking during implementation.
- Before review, read the whole diff. Remove code that no criterion or test needs, then rerun affected checks.
- After integration, run defined formatting, lint, typechecking, the full relevant test suite, and build. Resolve failures.
- Also run a spec's Verification commands. Report missing or broken ones.
- Extra checks may be side tasks. Run decisive acceptance checks yourself and inspect commands, outcomes, and failure evidence.
Step 5: Review independently
- Compare changes with the recorded baseline. Investigate an unexpected empty diff.
- When delegation is available and permitted, give two reviewers the contract, rules, baseline, diff, changed files, and verification evidence.
- Use reviewers who did not implement the changes. Run read-only reviews in parallel, without further delegation.
- If delegation is unavailable or prohibited, review the two axes separately yourself and disclose the limitation.
- Requirements: check missing criteria, incorrect behavior, unsupported scope, and evidence at each public test seam.
- Code: check correctness, maintainability, security, concurrency, errors, conventions, and test quality.
- Ask what could be deleted or merged without changing behavior. Flag one-caller layers, speculative options, and guards hiding bugs.
- Check that tests catch plausible violations. Flag mirrored algorithms, internal mocks, bypassed seams, and overfit fixtures.
- Separate rule violations from judgment calls. Skip issues conclusively enforced by passing tools.
- Review implementation changes, mentioning relevant pre-existing issues separately. Keep reports and unverifiable items explicit.
Axis: Requirements | Code
Verdict: Approve | Findings | Blocked
Findings:
- Critical | Important | Minor: file:line — violated requirement/rule; impact; concrete fix
Could not verify: ...Step 6: Resolve review findings
- Verify each finding against the contract and code. Fix every valid in-scope issue.
- Handle core fixes yourself and auxiliary fixes with their original writer.
- Rerun affected checks and give original reviewers the fix diff and evidence. Recheck open findings and new problems from fixes.
- Repeat both full reviews when fixes materially change behavior or design.
- Continue until both axes approve without material findings or a concrete external blocker prevents completion.
Step 7: Finish
- Ensure final verification covers all review fixes. Reuse current passing evidence when no relevant change followed it.
- Correct a supplied spec only for necessary factual corrections or approved decisions, preserving its intent.
- Do not commit, push, open a pull request, deploy, or publish unless requested.
- Report the outcome concisely:
Changed: <files and acceptance criteria>
Checks: <commands and outcomes, including red/green evidence>
Review: <requirements verdict; code verdict; fixes>
Limitations or blockers: <unverified items or required input>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.

