feature-dev
Skill192 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Feature development workflow. Use when: implementing features, writing code, running dev loop. Not for: understanding code (use code-explore), reviewing code (use codex-code-review). Output: implemented feature + tests + review gate.
- Commits and pushes
21 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- euxx/claude-skills-for-copilottheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- bhoon716/skill-forgetheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- z2014/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- maxg-agency/claude-code-setuptheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- waybarrios/opencode-power-packtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- HorizonRobotics/RoboOrchardLabtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use code-review.
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.
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 6 projects that use this
Other versions21 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 20
- Ohh-889/skyroc-admin★ 795same name
- LedgerHQ/ledger-live★ 627same name
- waybarrios/opencode-power-pack★ 547same name
- notedit/happy-skills★ 340same name
- notedit/happy-coding-agent★ 339same name
- HorizonRobotics/RoboOrchardLab★ 180same name
- bhoon716/skill-forge★ 4same name
- euxx/claude-skills-for-copilot★ 4same name
- neronain/ClaudeSkills-Neronain★ 3same name
- z2014/skills★ 3same name
10 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 repository102 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adrSkill
- agentctl-setupSkill
- architectureSkill
- askSkill
- best-practicesSkill
- bug-fixSkill
- bump-versionSkill
- check-coverageSkill
- claude-healthSkill
- code-exploreSkill
- code-investigateSkill
- codex-architectSkill
- codex-brainstormSkill
- codex-cli-reviewSkill
- codex-code-reviewSkill
- codex-explainSkill
- codex-implementSkill
- codex-review-branchSkill
- codex-review-docSkill
- codex-review-fastSkill
- codex-reviewSkill
- codex-securitySkill
- codex-setupSkill
- codex-test-genSkill
- codex-test-reviewSkill
- contract-decodeSkill
- create-prSkill
- create-requestSkill
- de-ai-flavorSkill
- debugSkill
- deep-analyzeSkill
- deep-exploreSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dep-auditSkill
- deploy-flowSkill
- dev-security-auditSkill
- doc-refactorSkill
- doc-reviewSkill
- epic-mergeSkill
- feasibility-studySkill
- feature-verifySkill
- fp-briefSkill
- generate-runnerSkill
- gh-stackSkill
- git-investigateSkill
- git-profileSkill
- install-hooksSkill
- install-rulesSkill
- install-scriptsSkill
- issue-analyzeSkill
- jiraSkill
- load-pr-reviewSkill
- merge-prepSkill
- necessity-auditSkill
- next-stepSkill
- obsidian-cliSkill
- op-sessionSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- plan-reviewSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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 116
If code changes after the latest ✅ Tests sufficient gate (e.g., fixes from code review), rerun /verify then /codex-test-review --continue …
- Very specific: line 120
Follow @rules/testing.md for conventions (AAA, naming, evidence model).
- Very specific: line 121
Follow @rules/testing-project.md for project-specific overrides (directories, runner, adequacy mode).
- Very specific: line 133
Use project convention from @rules/testing-project.md.
- Distinctive: line 144
Test adequacy gate: ✅ Tests sufficient
- Very specific: line 160
Only when change maps to a feature under docs/features/.
“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.
Files
Feature Development Skill
Trigger
- Keywords: develop feature, implement, write code, verify, precommit, refactor, simplify
When NOT to Use
- Just want to understand code (use Explore)
- Review code only (use codex-code-review)
- Review documents only (use doc-review)
- Pure test-only tasks without feature changes (use
/codex-test-reviewdirectly)
Prohibited Actions
❌ git add | git commit | git push — per @rules/git-workflow.mdThis skill implements features but does not commit. /precommit is a quality gate only. To commit, offer the menu per rules/git-workflow.md § Proactive Offer — a commit option on any real branch, a push option only where review-state.js offer allows one — and invoke /smart-commit --execute on selection; never print the command for the user to copy.
budget:token_budget200000</budget:token_budget>
Workflow
Requirements → Design → Implement → Test + Review → Precommit Gate → Doc Sync
│ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
/codex- /codex- /verify /precommit /update-docs
architect implement /codex-test-review (or /precommit) /create-request --update
/codex-review-fastLoad the intent first: identify the feature this work belongs to (from the task, the
spec/requirements being followed, or the paths being changed) and read
docs/features/<key>/intent-<key>.md if it exists — it overrides your default approach. Work
that contradicts one of its INV-* invariants or Non-goals stops and asks the user (cite the
line; amending intent is their re-decision). No identifiable feature → nothing to load; proceed.
Design before code: for a non-trivial change, briefly consider who owns each responsibility,
the simplest shape that fits the existing code, and why — and say what you chose when the choice
is non-obvious. Principles (clear names, small cohesive functions, dependency direction,
composition where it reduces coupling) are questions, not quotas: never add an abstraction to
demonstrate design. /codex-architect is for genuinely hard trade-offs (cross-module boundaries,
new public APIs, durable abstractions), not every feature.
agentctl (optional)
At the start, run node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/agentctl-setup/scripts/agentctl-setup.js" status
once. Only when state is installed/enabled, offer to draft a task proposal from the ticket per
@skills/agentctl-setup/references/workflow-integration.md — the user accepts it with
/agentctl accept; any other state, say nothing about agentctl and continue. It is never a gate:
every review and precommit obligation in this skill is unchanged, and its evidence is context
beside a verdict, never the verdict.
Commands
| Phase | Command | Description |
| Design | /codex-architect | Get architecture advice |
| Implement | /codex-implement | Codex writes code |
| Test: Run | /verify | Run tests (lint → typecheck → unit → integration) |
| Test: Review | /codex-test-review | Mandatory — review test sufficiency (5 dimensions) |
| Test: Generate | /codex-test-gen | Generate unit tests for gaps |
| Test: Integration | /post-dev-test | Write missing integration/e2e tests |
| Review | /codex-review-fast | Code review (auto-loop) |
| Precommit | /precommit | lint + build + test (auto-loop canonical path) |
| Doc Sync | /update-docs | Sync docs with code |
| Doc Sync | /create-request --update | Update request progress |
| Refactor | /simplify | Final refactoring |
Test + Review Phase (Detail)
This is the core of feature-dev — ensuring sufficient test coverage before code review.
Step 1: Run existing tests
/verify → all tests pass?
Yes → Step 2
No → fix failures → re-run /verifyStep 2: Test adequacy review (mandatory for code changes)
/codex-test-review → ✅ Tests sufficient?
Yes → Step 3
No → close gaps (Step 2a) → /codex-test-review --continueStep 2a: Gap closure
| Gap Type | Remediation Command |
| Unit test missing/insufficient | /codex-test-gen → write tests → /verify |
| Integration/E2E missing | /post-dev-test → write tests → /verify |
Step 3: Code review (auto-loop)
/codex-review-fast → ✅ Ready?
Yes → Precommit Gate
No → fix issues → re-run /codex-review-fast (auto-loop)Freshness rule
If code changes after the latest ✅ Tests sufficient gate (e.g., fixes from code review), rerun /verify then /codex-test-review --continue before proceeding to precommit gate.
Testing Requirements
Follow @rules/testing.md for conventions (AAA, naming, evidence model).
Follow @rules/testing-project.md for project-specific overrides (directories, runner, adequacy mode).
| Change Type | Test Requirements |
| New Service/Provider | Must have corresponding unit test |
| Modify existing logic | Existing tests pass + new logic tested |
| Bug fix | Must add regression test |
| New API endpoint | Integration test required |
| Cross-service change | E2E test required |
Test File Mapping
Use project convention from @rules/testing-project.md. If no override is defined, follow ecosystem defaults:
| Source Pattern | Test Pattern |
src/<module>/ | test/unit/<module>/ or test/<module>/ |
scripts/<name>.sh | test/scripts/<name>.test.js |
skills/<name>/SKILL.md | test/skills/<name>.test.js |
Output
- Implemented feature code + tests
- Test adequacy gate: ✅ Tests sufficient
- Review gate: ✅ Ready
- Precommit results: ✅ All Pass
Verification Checklist
- All tests pass (
/verify) - Test adequacy reviewed (
/codex-test-review) - Code review passed (
/codex-review-fast✅ Ready) - Precommit passed (
/precommit✅ All Pass) - No
git add/commit/pushexecuted
Doc Sync (after precommit Pass)
⚠️ Auto-triggered by @rules/auto-loop.md — behavior-layer rule, not hook-enforced.
Only when change maps to a feature under docs/features/. Target detection uses 3-level fallback — see /update-docs for algorithm details.
precommit Pass
→ Locate feature docs (see /update-docs 3-level fallback)
→ /update-docs docs/features/<feature>/2-tech-spec.md (current-authority doc)
→ /create-request --update docs/features/<feature>/requests/<date>-<title>.md (record: status + outcome only)
→ /codex-review-doc (ONE dispatch for every doc touched above)
→ Safety valve: new code diff? → back to review loop (see /update-docs)Sync the current-authority doc; append to the record. The tech spec states what is true now, so
code landing makes it stale and it is rewritten. A request ticket, review log or ADR states what was
decided or done at a point in time — it is updated with status and outcome, never rewritten to match
today's code, because rewriting it destroys the record. scripts/lib/doc-metadata.js decides which a
file is; /codex-review-doc reviews each under the profile that classification earns.
One /codex-review-doc for all of them, not one per file: the changed docs are a single review plan
(skills/doc-review/SKILL.md § Workflow). Per-file dispatch is what multiplied a three-file doc sync
into three whole-document reviews.
Review Loop
MUST re-review after fix until PASS (per @rules/auto-loop.md)
Review → Issues found → Fix → Re-review → ... → ✅ Pass → Next stepExamples
Input: Implement a fee calculation method
Action: /codex-architect → /codex-implement → /verify → /codex-test-review → /codex-review-fast → /precommitInput: This code needs refactoring
Action: /simplify → /verify → /codex-test-review → /codex-review-fast → /precommitInput: Feature dev, continue (resuming work)
Action: Check git status → identify remaining tasks → continue from current phaseDoes 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.

