agentleFS
sd0xdevsd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow/skills/feature-dev/SKILL.md

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

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.
  • GoogleSkill

    code-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

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
  1. Very specific:

    If code changes after the latest ✅ Tests sufficient gate (e.g., fixes from code review), rerun /verify then /codex-test-review --continue …

    line 116
  2. Very specific:

    Follow @rules/testing.md for conventions (AAA, naming, evidence model).

    line 120
  3. Very specific:

    Follow @rules/testing-project.md for project-specific overrides (directories, runner, adequacy mode).

    line 121
  4. Very specific:

    Use project convention from @rules/testing-project.md.

    line 133
  5. Distinctive:

    Test adequacy gate: ✅ Tests sufficient

    line 144
  6. Very specific:

    Only when change maps to a feature under docs/features/.

    line 160

“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

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-review directly)

Prohibited Actions

❌ git add | git commit | git push — per @rules/git-workflow.md

This 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-fast

Load 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

PhaseCommandDescription
Design/codex-architectGet architecture advice
Implement/codex-implementCodex writes code
Test: Run/verifyRun tests (lint → typecheck → unit → integration)
Test: Review/codex-test-reviewMandatory — review test sufficiency (5 dimensions)
Test: Generate/codex-test-genGenerate unit tests for gaps
Test: Integration/post-dev-testWrite missing integration/e2e tests
Review/codex-review-fastCode review (auto-loop)
Precommit/precommitlint + build + test (auto-loop canonical path)
Doc Sync/update-docsSync docs with code
Doc Sync/create-request --updateUpdate request progress
Refactor/simplifyFinal 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 /verify

Step 2: Test adequacy review (mandatory for code changes)

/codex-test-review → ✅ Tests sufficient?
  Yes → Step 3
  No → close gaps (Step 2a) → /codex-test-review --continue

Step 2a: Gap closure

Gap TypeRemediation 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 TypeTest Requirements
New Service/ProviderMust have corresponding unit test
Modify existing logicExisting tests pass + new logic tested
Bug fixMust add regression test
New API endpointIntegration test required
Cross-service changeE2E test required

Test File Mapping

Use project convention from @rules/testing-project.md. If no override is defined, follow ecosystem defaults:

Source PatternTest Pattern
src/<module>/test/unit/<module>/ or test/<module>/
scripts/<name>.shtest/scripts/<name>.test.js
skills/<name>/SKILL.mdtest/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/push executed

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 step

Examples

Input: Implement a fee calculation method
Action: /codex-architect → /codex-implement → /verify → /codex-test-review → /codex-review-fast → /precommit
Input: This code needs refactoring
Action: /simplify → /verify → /codex-test-review → /codex-review-fast → /precommit
Input: Feature dev, continue (resuming work)
Action: Check git status → identify remaining tasks → continue from current phase

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.