implement
Skill43 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Execute an implementation plan (from `plan`) task by task, writing the code and tests and leaving the system green at every step. Use once you have an agreed plan or a clear next slice of work to build. It does not plan and does not open a PR — it turns a plan into working, tested code.
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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- build-write-like-meSkill
- clarifySkill
- commitSkill
- deliver-prSkill
- exploreSkill
- open-prSkill
- planSkill
- pr-fixSkill
- pr-monitorSkill
- rebaseSkill
- relay-archiveSkill
- relay-statusSkill
- review-prSkill
- reviewSkill
- simplifySkill
- stack-shipSkill
- tlSkill
- todoSkill
- validateSkill
- write-like-meSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 171 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Load the plan and review it critically: Read it end to end before touching code.
- Very specific: line 19
Load coding guidance: Read the repo's AGENTS.md when present, then read global guidance from ~/AGENTS.md or ~/.config/agents/AGENTS.md when …
- Very specific: line 23
Learn the repo's own commands: Read the Makefile, package.json scripts, or CI config to find the real build, typecheck, and test commands.
- Distinctive: line 29
Tracer-bullet TDD — one test ↔ one cycle: Write a single failing test for the slice's next behavior, watch it fail (red), write the minimum …
- Distinctive: line 31
Never write all the tests up front, and never refactor while a test is red — get to green first.
- Very specific: line 36
Commit the green slice: Commit a coherent, working increment (follow the repo's commit conventions).
- Very specific: line 40
Final verification: Run the full build and test suite once.
- Distinctive: line 43
Stop here — implementation is complete.
- Distinctive: line 47
Stop and surface the issue rather than guessing when you hit a real blocker: a missing dependency, a plan step that can't be followed as …
“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
Turn an implementation plan into working, tested code, one thin slice at a time, keeping the build and
existing tests green at every step. The bar: at any moment you could stop and the system is committable
— nothing half-built, nothing red. This phase consumes the artifact from plan; it does not design
the approach and does not open a PR. Decisions in the plan are settled — follow them; if one is
wrong or missing, stop and surface it rather than quietly inventing a different design.
Process
- Load the plan and review it critically. Read it end to end before touching code. If a task is ambiguous, a step is missing, or the approach looks wrong, raise it now — don't paper over a gap mid-implementation. Turn the plan's tasks into an ordered checklist of slices.
- Load coding guidance. Read the repo's
AGENTS.mdwhen present, then read global guidance from~/AGENTS.mdor~/.config/agents/AGENTS.mdwhen present. Repo guidance takes precedence over global guidance. Treat these files as implementation constraints for scope, style, tests, errors, comments, and workflow; if a plan conflicts with them, stop and surface the conflict before coding. - Learn the repo's own commands. Read the Makefile,
package.jsonscripts, or CI config to find the real build, typecheck, and test commands. Use those exact commands — never assume a toolchain the repo doesn't use. - Pick the smallest complete slice. A slice is the smallest change that is independently testable and leaves the system green — one task from the plan, often smaller. Do not start work on the default branch (main/master) without explicit consent.
- Tracer-bullet TDD — one test ↔ one cycle. Write a single failing test for the slice's next behavior, watch it fail (red), write the minimum code to pass it (green), then refactor if needed. Never write all the tests up front, and never refactor while a test is red — get to green first. For a bug, use the Prove-It pattern: first write the reproduction test that fails because of the bug, then fix the code so it passes.
- Verify the slice. Typecheck and run the targeted test files; confirm the slice's new test passes and no existing test regressed. The slice isn't done until the system is green again.
- Commit the green slice. Commit a coherent, working increment (follow the repo's
commitconventions). Keep the commit to this slice — don't fold in unrelated changes. - Next slice. Repeat 4–7 until every task in the plan is done. Hold scope: implement the plan, not adjacent improvements you notice along the way (note them for later).
- Final verification. Run the full build and test suite once. This is implement's own green
self-check, not the formal quality gate —
validateindependently runs the repo's full ordered gates and owns the authoritative go/no-go. Report what was built and which verifications passed. Stop here — implementation is complete; a separate workflow handles review and the PR.
When to stop and ask
Stop and surface the issue rather than guessing when you hit a real blocker: a missing dependency, a plan step that can't be followed as written, an instruction you don't understand, or a verification that fails repeatedly for a reason the plan doesn't cover. A plan gap is the planner's to resolve — flag it; don't silently redesign around it.
Red flags
- More than ~100 lines written without running a test — you've left tracer-bullet TDD.
- Refactoring while a test is red — get to green first, always.
- Writing all the tests up front instead of one failing test per cycle.
- A broken or red state left between slices — every commit must be green.
- Mixing unrelated changes into one slice or one commit.
- Touching files outside the plan's scope, or "improving" adjacent code while you're in there.
- Assuming a build/test command instead of using the repo's own (Makefile / package.json / CI).
- Ignoring repo/global AGENTS.md guidance or silently choosing between conflicting instructions.
- Inventing a different design because a plan decision seemed wrong — stop and surface it instead.
Verification checklist
- Each slice was the smallest independently-testable increment, and the system was green after it.
- Repo
AGENTS.mdand global~/AGENTS.mdor~/.config/agents/AGENTS.mdguidance were read when present and applied with repo guidance taking precedence. - Every behavior was driven by a failing test first (Prove-It for bugs); no refactor happened while red.
- Targeted tests + typecheck ran continuously; the full suite passed once at the end.
- Build and existing tests were green between every slice — no red state was committed.
- Only files in the plan's scope were touched; no unrelated changes rode along.
- The repo's own build/test commands were used, not an assumed toolchain.
- Blockers and plan gaps were surfaced, not worked around by guessing.
- No PR was opened and no next skill was invoked — implementation just returned.
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.

