dev-workflow
Skill161 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Plan, implement, review, verify, and amend substantial Pneuma Skills development work. Use for multi-step changes, architecture work, code review, or an explicitly requested development workflow; a small edit can follow AGENTS.md directly.
32 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AsiaOstrich/EngramGraphtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- bmsuisse/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- openflocon/Flocontheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Youngju-Heo/claude-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- dzianisv/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standardstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use retrospective, brainstorm and 6 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.
MicrosoftSkillretrospective
Review how work went and improve the next round. USE WHEN asked for a retro, delays, or process lessons. DO NOT USE for code review or transcript replay.
Also in 3 projects that use this
nicolasestremSkillbrainstorm
Structured idea generation and solution exploration with systematic analysis.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GitHubSkillrefactor
Surgical code refactoring to improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers extracting functions, renaming variables, breaking down god functions, improving type safety, eliminating code smells, and applying design patterns. Less drastic than repo-rebuilder; use for gradual improvements.
Also in 4 projects that use this
HashiCorpSkillchangelog
Add a `.changelog/<PR_NUMBER>.txt` entry for a GitHub Pull Request, commit, and push.
Also in 3 projects that use this
VercelSkilldeploy
Deploy applications to Vercel. Use when the user says "deploy", "deploy to Vercel", "push to production", "deploy my app", or "go live".
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillimprove-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions32 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 32
- ag2ai/faststream★ 5.4ksame name
- xstongxue/best-skills★ 2.9ksame name
- AltimateAI/vscode-dbt-power-user★ 586same name
- openflocon/Flocon★ 379same name
- SmartThingsCommunity/SmartThingsEdgeDrivers★ 349same name
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standards★ 84same name
- clarity-digital-development/tworkflow★ 47same name
- addxai/enterprise-harness-engineering★ 44same name
- muyen/vibe-to-prod★ 34same name
- AsiaOstrich/EngramGraph★ 4same name
22 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- bumpSkill
- create-adrSkill
- create-modeSkill
- showcaseSkill
- create-modeSkill
- dev-workflowSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 23 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 10
Read docs/reference/project-guide.md for the affected contracts and their definition → instantiation → consumer chain.
- Distinctive: line 39
Implement: Read the implementation role.
- Distinctive: line 42
Keep the model sufficient for the actual task.
- Distinctive: line 46
Check compatibility, ownership, lifecycle, and observable failure behavior.
- Very specific: line 52
Verify: Run the relevant suite from .claude/rules/testing.md, plus bun run typecheck for code changes.
- Distinctive: line 61
Amend: Read the amendment role, address each valid finding, and repeat the affected checks.
- Distinctive: line 69
After three rounds without convergence, reassess the cause and continue useful authorized work.
- Very specific: line 76
Read .claude/workflows/README.md for its arguments, worktree preconditions, and result schema.
- Very specific: line 82
Use the available planning, file-editing, browser, and question tools.
- Very specific: line 90
Commit/push/release only within the user's authorized scope.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 23 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
Pneuma development workflow
This is the shared development procedure for Claude Code and Codex. Read root
AGENTS.md, the relevant domain rules it routes to, and the acceptance criteria.
Read docs/reference/project-guide.md for the affected contracts and their
definition → instantiation → consumer chain. Paths here are repo-relative.
Engineering Judgment is the shared decision standard. Apply it through the questions below; keep its definitions in AGENTS.md rather than copying them into skills or harness adapters.
Choose the work shape
- A lookup or investigation uses explore.
- Architecture design or design review uses architect.
- A scoped implementation uses impl.
- Applying code-review findings uses amender.
- A new mode also uses the
create-modeskill. A release usesbump.
These are role instructions, not a requirement to spawn agents. Work locally by default. Delegate only when the user or the active task's instructions request delegation and the harness provides it. Give each worker a bounded task, actual checkout path, baseline, acceptance criteria, and the relevant role file. Inherit the active harness's model choices; Claude model aliases are not Codex model IDs.
Development loop
- Define the task. Identify the required behavior and invariants, affected contracts, state owners, test scope, and acceptance bar. Inspect existing implementations before choosing new abstractions or dependencies. Use existing user decisions; resolve routine implementation choices without asking again. Check the working tree and preserve unrelated edits. Isolate concurrent writers in separate worktrees.
- Implement. Read the implementation role. For behavior changes, reproduce the defect or pin the new behavior, implement, and verify. Documentation, discovery metadata, and formatting do not need tests that merely repeat text. Keep the model sufficient for the actual task. When introducing a boundary, wrapper, or optimization, retain the reason and evidence for its cost.
- Review. Inspect the actual diff against the requirements and domain rules. Trace each changed invariant through its consumers and boundary mappings. Check compatibility, ownership, lifecycle, and observable failure behavior. For external effects, check what retry, cancellation, recovery, or undo actually guarantees. Challenge layers and dependencies without a concrete role. For UI work, also inspect loading/empty/error states, interaction, design tokens, and browser evidence. Report concrete findings with location, impact, and severity; a missing review is not a passing review.
- Verify. Run the relevant suite from
.claude/rules/testing.md, plusbun run typecheckfor code changes. Usebun run testfor the routine repository gate andbun run test:releasefor releases; the selector enables relevant media/live tiers and falls back to full coverage when scope is unknown.bun run test:all --timeout 60000remains the explicit full run. Inspect the contract boundaries: no React in manifests, no new hardcoded mode knowledge in server/CLI, and backend differences behind the backend seam. UI changes need a browser screenshot and interaction pass. Performance claims need a reproducible baseline and comparison. Save command results and evidence. - Amend. Read the amendment role, address each valid finding, and repeat the affected checks. Accept only when verification passes and review has no open blocker or major finding. Report unresolved issues honestly; never silently count a crashed worker, unrun check, or missing result as success.
Review and verification may run concurrently when independent. When delegation is unavailable or not requested, perform separate review and verification passes locally and describe them as self-review; do not claim an independent reviewer. After three rounds without convergence, reassess the cause and continue useful authorized work. Ask for a decision only when the remaining fork exceeds scope.
Harness adapters
- Claude Code with the
Workflowtool: the existing.claude/workflows/dev-master-orchestrator.jsautomates delegated task waves. Read.claude/workflows/README.mdfor its arguments, worktree preconditions, and result schema. Its roster entries read the shared role files above. - Codex, or Claude Code without that tool: execute the same loop using the
tools actually exposed in this session. Do not try to run a workflow script
in Bun/Node as if that supplied Claude's
Workflowhost, or assume.claudeagent registrations are native Codex agents. - Use the available planning, file-editing, browser, and question tools. Tool
names such as
TaskCreate,AskUserQuestion, orReadare capabilities, not prerequisites. A short written plan or direct question is a valid fallback.
Completion
Report what changed and why, the checks actually run and their outcomes, and material limitations. Provide log or screenshot paths when they carry evidence. Commit/push/release only within the user's authorized scope. Never create tags; CI owns release tags. Do not end with a request for confirmation already given.
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.

