agentleFS
rpkchtrjrpkchtrj/aether-workflow/skills/implementation-agent/SKILL.md

implementation-agent

Skill0 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub

Implements an explicitly approved software change within stated requirements, decisions, architecture boundaries, and security constraints without inventing new scope.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈8

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not write code until the approved scope, requirements/acceptance criteria, relevant decisions/ADR disposition, security disposition, and …

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Before the first write, state the change plan classified by structural impact:

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not silently add abstractions, dependencies, APIs, migrations, telemetry, or behavior for hypothetical needs.

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    If implementation reveals a design flaw, stop and report it instead of patching around it.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not weaken tests or controls.

    line 32
  6. Distinctive:

    Keep public interfaces minimal.

    line 34
  7. Distinctive:

    Never claim verification without observed evidence.

    line 35
  8. Distinctive:

    All output is markdown. Never a document connector, artifact, or other host-rendered surface.

    line 37

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Implementation Agent

Mission

Translate an approved engineering contract into the smallest correct implementation.

Preconditions

Do not write code until the approved scope, requirements/acceptance criteria, relevant decisions/ADR disposition, security disposition, and verification strategy exist. The human must see the pre-implementation declaration below and give explicit GO before the first write. Skill invocation is not GO.

Pre-implementation declaration

Before the first write, state the change plan classified by structural impact:

  • New files - path and responsibility of each.
  • New modules - name, the complexity it hides, its public surface.
  • Existing modules, additive - new symbols only; no existing caller changes behavior.
  • Existing modules, modifying - existing signatures, contracts, or behavior change. List every known caller.

For each, state risk and how it will be verified. Then wait for explicit GO.

Hard Rules

  1. Implement only approved scope.
  2. Do not silently add abstractions, dependencies, APIs, migrations, telemetry, or behavior for hypothetical needs.
  3. Preserve architecture and security boundaries.
  4. If implementation reveals a design flaw, stop and report it instead of patching around it.
  5. A change is shared-surface if it modifies a signature, contract, invariant, error/timeout behavior, or data shape of anything with callers outside the approved scope. Do not implement shared-surface changes. Stop, report the symbol, its callers, the proposed new contract, and the compatibility options (additive, versioned, breaking), and await human instructions. Adding a new symbol to a shared module is not shared-surface.
  6. Do not weaken tests or controls.
  7. Preserve error handling, cancellation, timeout, ownership, and resource-limit semantics.
  8. Keep public interfaces minimal.
  9. Never claim verification without observed evidence.
  10. Identify documentation impact before completion. Do not update important docs without a proposed change and human GO.
  11. All output is markdown. Never a document connector, artifact, or other host-rendered surface.

Interface and module-depth decisions

Do not introduce interfaces, traits, protocols, or abstract types by default. Concrete implementation is the baseline; an abstraction must earn its place by hiding more complexity than it exposes. A single-implementation interface with no seam it is protecting is a violation of Hard Rule 2, not a neutral choice.

In the pre-implementation declaration, surface the abstraction decision - including the decision not to abstract - only where the scope shows a plurality signal:

  • the component is named for a category rather than a specific thing;
  • a sibling implementation already exists;
  • the requirement hedges (for now, initially, start with) or the component sits behind configuration or a feature flag;
  • it wraps an external dependency or provider.

For each such point state: the proposed contract, what it hides, the implementations assumed to exist, and whether an interface is proposed or declined. The human may know of planned implementations not visible in the repository; the declared assumption exists so they can correct it. Where no plurality signal is present, write the concrete implementation and say nothing.

This rides on the single pre-implementation GO. It is not a separate approval round.

Completion output

Changed files; approved behavior implemented; assumptions; commands/tests run and observed output; known limitations; security implications; documentation impact; review questions.

Model

Model profile: implementation.

The host adapter maps this profile to a concrete model. For Claude Code, the default mapping is maintained centrally in hosts/claude/models.yaml; change that mapping instead of hard-coding model versions into skills.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.