dev-cycle
Skill1 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrate one issue from plan through implementation, review, and merge. Use when asked to implement, build, ship, or do an issue.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- iuliandita/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
- shinobiashi/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- iuliandita/skills★ 11same name
- shinobiashi/claude-skills★ 0same 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.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- backlog-refineSkill
- burndownSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- issue-diagnoseSkill
- issue-implementSkill
- issue-planSkill
- issue-raiseSkill
- issue-refineSkill
- paper-docSkill
- project-statusSkill
- qaSkill
- setupSkill
- weekly-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Very specific: line 12
Use issue-plan § Board Status Transitions: explicit board: none skips board operations, not ledger ownership.
- Distinctive: line 36
Never skip planning as "trivial".
≈ “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
Dev Cycle
Coordinator (user session or burndown per issue): dispatch and sequence roles; never write code, post plans, transition board status, or merge.
Project facts from AGENTS.md: § Project Board, § Branch Map, § Build & Validation, § Repositories. Missing section: name it and stop.
Use issue-plan § Board Status Transitions: explicit board: none skips board operations, not ledger ownership; missing board facts stop. Deliver fully resolving PRs only, never partial Refs.
Inputs
GitHub issue number/URL anchors ledger, claim, and Closes #n. No issue: run issue-raise first. Batch coordinator may supply owned file/module scope and validation requirements.
Subagent Dispatch
All subagent orchestration defaults to foreground execution: wait for dispatched work to finish and collect its result before continuing dependent work. Use background mode only when the user explicitly requests it; pass that choice through nested coordinators within the requested scope. Set the tool's foreground option explicitly where available (for example, background: false or run_in_background: false).
Parallel work does not imply background permission. Use concurrent foreground calls when supported; otherwise dispatch sequentially. If the harness only offers asynchronous dispatch, wait for completion before continuing and state that limitation rather than claiming native foreground execution.
Phases
| Phase | Role | Skill | Skipped when |
| Diagnose (as needed) | architect | issue-diagnose | no phase reports needs diagnosis |
| Refine (as needed) | project-manager | issue-refine | the issue is ready and no RCA concludes needs refinement |
| 1. Plan | architect | issue-plan | the user explicitly asked to resume an already-planned issue |
| 2. Implement | developer | issue-implement | explicit resume with an existing delivery PR goes to review |
| 3. Review + merge | architect, distinct from phase 2 | code-review (PR mode) | never |
| 4. Revise | developer, then a fresh architect | issue-implement § Revision Round, code-review § Re-review | the review was clean |
- Fresh context per phase: issue number/URL and needed facts only, no inherited conversation.
- Never skip planning as "trivial"; the architect establishes scope before implementation/review. The soft gate avoids unnecessary round trips.
- Validate each result against its request before dispatching the next; inconsistencies stop.
Phase Prompts
Diagnose: Run issue-diagnose on issue <number> (<url>). [Re-diagnosis authorized by this cycle; RCA REST id: <...>; trigger: <blocker or review finding>.] Return RCA link/REST id, conclusion, criteria, refinement or evidence needed.
Refine: Run issue-refine on issue <number> (<url>). [Apply the RCA's requested change: <...>.] [Approved: <user go-ahead>.] Return proposal and questions, or the applied refinement and verified status.
Plan: Run issue-plan on issue <number> (<url>). Return ledger link, approach, task count, blockers/decisions.
Implement: Run issue-implement initial mode on issue <number> (<url>). Claim/resume evidence; ledger REST id/link: <...>. [Owned scope: <files/modules>.] Validation: <§ Build & Validation>. Return PR URL, paths, ledger state, validation output, risks.
Review: Run code-review PR mode on PR <number>, round <n>. Merge iff criteria hold; perform after-merge steps. Return assessment, comment URL, merge/blocker, board transition, cleanup.
Revise: Run issue-implement revision mode on PR <number> (issue <n>, <url>). Current-cycle ownership; ledger REST id/link: <...>. Findings from <review comment URL>: <enumerated>. Validation: <...>. Return commits, fixed/contested findings with reasoning, validation output.Flow
- Load issue (
gh issue view <n> --repo <repo-slug> --json number,title,body,state,url), complete board lookup, and all REST ledger comments perissue-plan. Closed/done: finished, stop. Existing ledger or in-progress/in-review:claimed, stop unless explicitly user-authorized resume, even boardless; batch dispatch is not authorization. Backlog/unrefined:issue-refine; it reports needs diagnosis: Diagnose, then refine again. Authorized resume with delivery PR goes to review, not initial implementation: first verify unique ledger, open PR identity, exact intended closing reference, and in-review orboard: none. In-review without matching PR blocks. - Plan, unless explicit resume.
claimed: report/stop. Decisions instead of ledger: return to user/batch coordinator and stop, never answer for the architect.needs diagnosis: Diagnose, then plan again. RCA needs refinement: Refine with the requested change, holding the user's approval, then plan again; once per RCA, a second request stops and reports both. Confirm unique ledger and in-progress orboard: none; retain claim/resume evidence and ledger REST id/link for handoffs. - Implement. Require fully resolving PR URL, exact closing-reference verification per
issue-implement, validation output, and verified in-review orboard: none. Blocked: return ledger once to architect inissue-plansame-cycle blocked-plan repair mode, with ownership evidence/blockers. Architect returnsneeds diagnosis: Diagnose with this cycle's authorization, then finish the same repair. Continue only after ledger blockers clear; decisions or repeated blocker stop, never generic auto-resume. - Review, round 1. Merged: finish. Needs diagnosis (takes precedence): Diagnose with this cycle's authorization, run the blocked-plan repair with the review finding, then Revise with the ledger's changed tasks as findings; this spends the cycle's single repair and one revision round. Repair already used, a second needs diagnosis, or
unchanged: park with both positions. Critical/High: revise. Otherwise any unmet merge criterion, including important Medium findings: report the blocker and leave the PR open for the user. - Revise, at most twice (review rounds 2/3). Developer fixes enumerated findings only; fresh architect re-reviews against prior comment. Contest ends loop immediately for human decision. Cap/contest: park PR with round, exit reason, both positions.
- Report: issue/PR URLs, ledger link/approach, merge commit or parked round/reason or unmet criterion, verified board status, validation, residual risks, incomplete work.
Without Subagents
One fresh session per phase, loading only that phase's skill and prompt. Never review in the session that implemented.
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.

