agentleFS
rpraharajrpraharaj/ai-engineer/skills/implement-change/SKILL.md

implement-change

Skill1 starsChanged 15 days agoMITView on GitHub

Implement a scoped software change in the current repository using existing patterns. Use when the user wants a feature, bug fix, or code change applied (implement, build, add, make the change) and the ask is already shaped or is a clear small change. Detect and run this repo's checks. Do not claim done without command output.

17 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use audit-test-suite, change-data-safely and 9 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.
  • yaohuangguanSkill

    audit-test-suite

    Find where an existing test suite is weak and decide what to test next, ranked by risk. Use this when asked to add missing tests, find gaps, raise coverage, assess test quality or see which areas are thin, even if the request only mentions a coverage percentage.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • yaohuangguanSkill

    change-data-safely

    Change a database schema or stored data without breaking running code or losing data. Use this for any migration, new or changed column, backfill, bulk update, delete, index, or change to a stored format, including in small projects. Data mistakes are often impossible to undo.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • BanKnightSkill

    plan-change

    将已完成 spec/design 的 change 拆成可执行 plan 与 tasks。用户要把设计落成执行计划、任务清单或实现步骤时使用。

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • SauravSrivastavSkill

    debug-failure

    Diagnose a failing test, command, or runtime behavior using evidence and produce a minimal verified fix.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    fix-flaky-test

    Reproduces and fixes flaky or quarantined tests. Tries local reproduction first (fast), then falls back to CI reproduce workflow (reproduce-flaky-tests.yml). Use this when asked to investigate, reproduce, debug, or fix a flaky test, a quarantined test, or an intermittently failing test.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +6 more from yaohuangguan

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Read AGENTS.md if present.

    line 16
  2. Very specific:

    If the workspace has no product yet (empty, or only bootstrap files such as README, LICENSE, .gitignore, AGENTS.md), stop and run …

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    If this is a bug fix, find every caller of the function you will change and fix the shared cause once.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    No drive-by refactors, no formatting-only edits outside the files you already must change.

    line 26
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not add a dependency unless a lower rung cannot do the job.

    line 27
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not edit generated or vendored paths listed in AGENTS.md.

    line 28
  7. Distinctive:

    If a smaller equivalent approach covers the ask, ship that and name what you skipped (add when …).

    line 29
  8. Very specific:

    Run, in order, whatever AGENTS.md (or explore-codebase) recorded:

    line 33
  9. Very specific:

    If a command is (unknown), say so and run the closest command you already observed in CI or a manifest.

    line 39
  10. Distinctive:

    Never claim pass without this session's command output.

    line 41
  11. Very specific:

    If tests are missing for new behavior, add them using the write-tests procedure (same runner and style as existing tests) before claiming …

    line 43
  12. Very specific:

    If the change touches UI (components, routes, CSS, views, client state), follow verify-ui before claiming done.

    line 45
  13. Distinctive:

    Verify UI: pass | fail | unverified | n/a

    line 59
  14. Very specific:

    Do not commit unless the user asked.

    line 63

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 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.

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

Implement change

Apply the smallest change that satisfies the request (a shaped task, or a clear small change). You are one agent with a filesystem and a shell. Do not orchestrate other agents unless the user asked.

Before you edit

  1. Read AGENTS.md if present. Use its commands.
  2. If the workspace has no product yet (empty, or only bootstrap files such as README, LICENSE, .gitignore, AGENTS.md), stop and run start-project.
  3. If the request is vague (no acceptance checks, no in/out of scope, and more than one product decision is open), run shape-work first and stop after shaping unless the user already told you to implement the result. If they pointed at a write-dev-tasks list, take Task 1 (or the task they named) — shape-work it if it is still loose. A clear small change (one behavior, likely files are obvious, no open product fork) does not need a shape document — implement it.
  4. Load engineering-bar (paths in that skill). If it is missing, follow repository instructions and disclose the incomplete shared-bar assessment rather than claiming it passed.
  5. Climb Minimum path in that bar. Search this repo for an existing helper before writing a new one.
  6. If this is a bug fix, find every caller of the function you will change and fix the shared cause once. Do not patch only the ticket's path.

Make the change

  • Touch only files needed for the request and for tests that belong to it.
  • No drive-by refactors, no formatting-only edits outside the files you already must change.
  • Do not add a dependency unless a lower rung cannot do the job. If you add one, say why.
  • Do not edit generated or vendored paths listed in AGENTS.md.
  • If a smaller equivalent approach covers the ask, ship that and name what you skipped (add when …). Do not stall asking permission for that smaller solution.

Prove it

Run, in order, whatever AGENTS.md (or explore-codebase) recorded:

  1. The focused test for this change, if you know how to target it
  2. Test
  3. Lint / Typecheck if those commands are known and cheap enough to run on the change

If a command is (unknown), say so and run the closest command you already observed in CI or a manifest. If you still cannot run anything, say that the change is unverified.

Never claim pass without this session's command output.

If tests are missing for new behavior, add them using the write-tests procedure (same runner and style as existing tests) before claiming done.

If the change touches UI (components, routes, CSS, views, client state), follow verify-ui before claiming done.

Apply the bar

Walk the diff against engineering-bar. Fix fails. Only the user may waive an item; report their explicit waiver and its risk. Load the bar's shared evidence procedure and reuse current results rather than repeating unchanged checks.

Done

Report:

  1. What changed (files + behavior)
  2. Rung used (need / reuse / stdlib / native / installed dep / one line / minimum) and what you skipped
  3. Acceptance checks: each pass/fail
  4. Commands run and their exit status
  5. Verify UI: pass | fail | unverified | n/a
  6. Engineering-bar fails or waivers
  7. Known ceiling + revisit trigger, or none

Do not commit unless the user asked. Next: write-tests if coverage is still thin, verify-ui if UI is still unverified, ready-to-merge before calling it shippable, then commit.

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.