using-agent-skills
Skill560 starsChanged 50 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Discovers and invokes agent skills. Use when starting a session, or when you need to decide which skill or workflow applies to the piece of work at hand. This is the meta-skill that governs how all other skills are discovered and invoked.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 16 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
16
Common
Most of the 44 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 14
When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:
- Common: line 48
Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:
- Common: line 58
Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements.
- Common: line 62
When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:
- Common: line 64
STOP: Do not proceed with a guess.
- Common: line 67
Wait for resolution before continuing.
- Common: line 87
Before finishing any implementation, ask:
- Common: line 92
If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed.
- Common: line 99
Remove comments you don't understand
- Common: line 102
Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval
- Common: line 103
Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
- Common: line 109
Every skill includes a verification step.
- Common: line 118
Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost
- Common: line 119
Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice
- Common: line 120
Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions
- Common: line 132
Skills are workflows, not suggestions: Follow the steps in order.
- Very specific: line 136
When in doubt, start with a PRD: If the task is non-trivial and there's no requirements document, begin with get-prd.
- Very specific: line 158
Not every task needs every skill.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 44 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
Using Agent Skills
Overview
Agent Skills is a collection of engineering workflow skills organized by development phase. Each skill encodes a specific process that senior engineers follow. This meta-skill helps you discover and apply the right skill for your current task.
Skill Discovery
When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:
Task arrives
│
├── New app/system/feature, no requirements doc? → get-prd
├── Have a rough concept, need variants? → idea-refine
├── No quality bar written down? ──→ constraint-driven-development
├── Approved PRD, need a data model? → get-schema
├── Approved PRD, need executable tasks? → get-tasks
├── Implementing code? ────────────→ incremental-implementation
│ ├── UI visual direction unresolved? → get-design
│ ├── Established UI implementation? ─→ frontend-ui-engineering
│ └── API work? ────────────────→ api-and-interface-design
├── Writing/running tests? ────────→ test-driven-development
├── Something broke? ──────────────→ debugging-and-error-recovery
├── Reviewing code? ───────────────→ code-review-and-quality
│ ├── Too complex? ─────────────→ code-simplification
│ ├── Security concerns? ───────→ security-and-hardening
│ └── Performance concerns? ────→ performance-optimization
├── Committing/branching? ─────────→ git-workflow-and-versioning
├── CI/CD pipeline work? ──────────→ ci-cd-and-automation
├── Deprecating/migrating? ────────→ deprecation-and-migration
├── Writing docs/ADRs? ───────────→ documentation-and-adrs
├── Adding logs/metrics/alerts? ───→ observability-and-instrumentation
└── Deploying/launching? ─────────→ shipping-and-launchCore Operating Behaviors
These behaviors apply at all times, across all skills. They are non-negotiable.
1. Surface Assumptions
Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:
ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
1. [assumption about requirements]
2. [assumption about architecture]
3. [assumption about scope]
→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early — it's cheaper than rework.
2. Manage Confusion Actively
When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:
- STOP. Do not proceed with a guess.
- Name the specific confusion.
- Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question.
- Wait for resolution before continuing.
Bad: Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right. Good: "I see X in the spec but Y in the existing code. Which takes precedence?"
3. Push Back When Warranted
You are not a yes-machine. When an approach has clear problems:
- Point out the issue directly
- Explain the concrete downside (quantify when possible — "this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower")
- Propose an alternative
- Accept the human's decision if they override with full information
Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. Honest technical disagreement is more valuable than false agreement.
4. Enforce Simplicity
Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it.
Before finishing any implementation, ask:
- Can this be done in fewer lines?
- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive.
5. Maintain Scope Discipline
Touch only what you're asked to touch.
Do NOT:
- Remove comments you don't understand
- "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task
- Refactor adjacent systems as a side effect
- Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval
- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation.
6. Verify, Don't Assume
Every skill includes a verification step. A task is not complete until verification passes. "Seems right" is never sufficient — there must be evidence (passing tests, build output, runtime data).
Per-skill verification is the local check. The project-wide bar that applies to every change, regardless of which skill is active, is the Definition of Done: tests pass, no regressions, behavior verified at runtime, docs updated. See ../../references/definition-of-done.md. It complements each task's acceptance criteria rather than replacing them.
Failure Modes to Avoid
These are the subtle errors that look like productivity but create problems:
- Making wrong assumptions without checking
- Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost
- Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice
- Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions
- Being sycophantic ("Of course!") to approaches with clear problems
- Overcomplicating code and APIs
- Modifying code or comments orthogonal to the task
- Removing things you don't fully understand
- Building without a spec because "it's obvious"
- Skipping verification because "it looks right"
Skill Rules
- Check for an applicable skill before starting work. Skills encode processes that prevent common mistakes.
- Skills are workflows, not suggestions. Follow the steps in order. Don't skip verification steps.
- Multiple skills can apply. A feature implementation might involve
get-prd→get-schema→get-tasks→incremental-implementation→test-driven-development→code-review-and-quality→code-simplification→shipping-and-launchin sequence. - When in doubt, start with a PRD. If the task is non-trivial and there's no requirements document, begin with
get-prd.
Lifecycle Sequence
For a complete feature, the typical skill sequence is:
1. get-prd → Extract intent and produce an approved PRD
2. idea-refine → Refine vague ideas
3. constraint-driven-development → Set the written quality bar
4. get-schema → Design the data model
5. get-tasks → Break the PRD into verifiable task files
6. incremental-implementation → Build slice by slice
7. test-driven-development → Prove each slice works
8. code-review-and-quality → Review before merge
9. code-simplification → Reduce unnecessary complexity while preserving behavior
10. git-workflow-and-versioning → Clean commit history
11. documentation-and-adrs → Document decisions
12. deprecation-and-migration → Retire old systems and move users safely when needed
13. shipping-and-launch → Deploy safelyNot every task needs every skill. A bug fix might only need: debugging-and-error-recovery → test-driven-development → code-review-and-quality.
Quick Reference
| Phase | Skill | One-Line Summary |
| Define | get-prd | Deep interview plus PRD authoring in one pass |
| Define | idea-refine | Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking |
| Define | constraint-driven-development | Written quality bar with enforced thresholds |
| Plan | get-schema | Data model with tables, columns, relations, indexes, constraints |
| Plan | get-tasks | Decompose an approved PRD into tracked, verifiable task files |
| Build | incremental-implementation | Thin vertical slices, test each before expanding |
| Build | get-design | Product-specific visual direction, anti-AI-slop design, critique, and UI refinement |
| Build | frontend-ui-engineering | Production-quality UI with accessibility |
| Build | api-and-interface-design | Stable interfaces with clear contracts |
| Verify | test-driven-development | Failing test first, then make it pass |
| Verify | debugging-and-error-recovery | Reproduce → localize → fix → guard |
| Review | code-review-and-quality | Five-axis review with quality gates |
| Review | code-simplification | Preserve behavior while reducing unnecessary complexity |
| Review | security-and-hardening | OWASP prevention, input validation, least privilege |
| Review | performance-optimization | Measure first, optimize only what matters |
| Ship | git-workflow-and-versioning | Atomic commits, clean history |
| Ship | ci-cd-and-automation | Automated quality gates on every change |
| Ship | deprecation-and-migration | Remove old systems and migrate users safely |
| Ship | documentation-and-adrs | Document the why, not just the what |
| Ship | observability-and-instrumentation | Structured logs, RED metrics, traces, symptom-based alerts |
| Ship | shipping-and-launch | Pre-launch checklist, monitoring, rollback plan |
Other versions49 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 40
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 112k77% same
- shashankswe2020-ux/whoop-mcp★ 17478% same
- vinvcn/addyosmani-agent-skills-zh★ 4619% same
- jmxt3/gitscape.ai★ 3378% same
- sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 2473% same
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 2276% same
- HK-hub/AgentSkills★ 676% same
- lza6/claw-code-tingfeng★ 578% same
- dzevs/zynk★ 466% same
- Marvellbrazil/my-agentic-skills★ 477% same
30 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 9
- kdlbs/kandev★ 1ksame name
- bnalwalid/walidforge-skills★ 2same name
- codexskills/agent-forge★ 2same name
- GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android★ 2same name
- yuusakuri/agent-skills★ 2same name
- Aleksandr-Litvinenko/agent-skills-ru★ 1same name
- celestialdust/achilles-skills★ 1same name
- joegoldin/agent-skills★ 1same name
- agent-packs/registry★ 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use doubt-driven-development, source-driven-development 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.
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 37 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillsource-driven-development
Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.
Also in 31 projects that use this
skytiger6724Skillbrainstorm-experiments-existing
Design experiments to test assumptions for an existing product — prototypes, A/B tests, spikes, and other low-effort validation methods. Use when validating assumptions, testing feature ideas cheaply, or planning product experiments.
Also in 4 projects that use this
skytiger6724Skillpositioning-ideas
Brainstorm product positioning ideas differentiated from competitors. Identifies top competitors and generates positioning statements with rationale. Use when developing product positioning, differentiating from competitors, or crafting brand positioning strategy.
Also in 4 projects that use this
45ckSkillpestle-analysis
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +3 more from skytiger6724
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- constraint-driven-developmentSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- get-designSkill
- get-prdSkill
- get-schemaSkill
- get-tasksSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- observability-and-instrumentationSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
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.

