agentleFS
shinprshinpr/agentic-code/.agents/skills/implementation-approach/SKILL.md

implementation-approach

Skill51 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

Selects the smallest sufficient implementation strategy and verification boundary from current requirements and repository evidence.

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

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    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:

    Use this sequence when a design or task needs an implementation approach:

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Failure check: Test the direct implementation against current requirements, verified constraints, observed problems, and evidence-backed …

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Targeted expansion: Add only what resolves a failed item.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep unselected candidates in the active execution context.

    line 20
  5. Distinctive:

    Create phases from verified dependencies rather than architecture layers.

    line 30
  6. Distinctive:

    Prefer observable operation, then a test, then build or static evidence when each is applicable.

    line 40
  7. Distinctive:

    Every added mechanism resolves a current failed item.

    line 45

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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

Implementation Approach

Strategy Selection

Use this sequence when a design or task needs an implementation approach:

  1. Current evidence: Inspect the relevant responsibility, data or control path, representative repository pattern, and constraints that can change the choice.
  2. Direct implementation: Describe the simplest end-to-end change that delivers the outcome through the existing architecture and dependencies.
  3. Failure check: Test the direct implementation against current requirements, verified constraints, observed problems, and evidence-backed material risks within scope.
  4. Targeted expansion: Add only what resolves a failed item. Compare the smaller design with and without the addition.
  5. Value and subtraction check: Retain an addition only when evidence shows that its outcome benefit justifies its implementation, testing, documentation, runtime, and maintenance cost.

Possible future reuse, generic best practice, speculative edge cases, and optional hardening are not failed items. File count is supporting evidence, not a strategy rule.

Keep unselected candidates in the active execution context. Create a durable artifact only for a named downstream consumer.

Slicing Choice

Choose the smallest structure that preserves real dependency order and yields observable progress:

  • Vertical: One user- or consumer-visible outcome can be completed across its layers without first creating a shared foundation.
  • Foundation-first: Multiple required outcomes depend on the same contract or mechanism that must exist before any can work.
  • Hybrid: One verified shared dependency comes first, followed by outcome-oriented slices.

Create phases from verified dependencies rather than architecture layers. Keep independently executable work separate when combining it would obscure ownership or verification.

Verification Level

Select the narrowest level that exercises the boundary named by the requirement:

  • L1: Local: A unit, pure transformation, local command, build, or artifact check.
  • L2: Integration: Interaction across components, persistence, processes, or another named integration boundary.
  • L3: End-to-end: The complete user, browser, process, or service journey required by the acceptance criterion.

Prefer observable operation, then a test, then build or static evidence when each is applicable.

Completion Check

  • The approach delivers the outcome through existing patterns where sufficient.
  • Every added mechanism resolves a current failed item.
  • Task order follows verified dependencies rather than hypothetical rollout needs.
  • Verification exercises the required observable boundary without adding an unnecessary wider lane.

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.