recipe-front-build
Skill712 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Execute materialized frontend task files in autonomous execution mode
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shinpr/codex-workflowstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- shinpr/codex-workflows★ 39same name
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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-principlesSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- external-resource-contextSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- recipe-add-integration-testsSkill
- recipe-buildSkill
- recipe-designSkill
- recipe-diagnoseSkill
- recipe-front-adjustSkill
- recipe-front-designSkill
- recipe-front-planSkill
- recipe-front-reviewSkill
- recipe-fullstack-buildSkill
- recipe-fullstack-implementSkill
- recipe-implementSkill
- recipe-planSkill
- recipe-quality-profileSkill
- recipe-reverse-engineerSkill
- recipe-reviewSkill
- recipe-update-docSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- testing-principlesSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
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 19
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
- Distinctive: line 24
Enter autonomous mode: when the user provides execution instruction with an existing Work Plan or task files — this IS the batch approval
- Very specific: line 27
CRITICAL: Commit only after quality-fixer-frontend returns pass or verification_incomplete.
- Distinctive: line 35
Before any task processing, locate the work plan.
- Very specific: line 36
Use the work plan explicitly supplied in $ARGUMENTS when present.
- Very specific: line 38
When task groups produce no candidate, use the only Work Plan under docs/plans/ when exactly one exists.
- Very specific: line 47
Every subsequent reference to "task files" in this recipe — Task Generation Decision Flow, Task Execution Cycle iteration, and Final …
- Distinctive: line 62
When the Consumed Task Set is empty:
- Distinctive: line 80
If commit capability is unavailable → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance before autonomous mode
- Distinctive: line 102
Use each subagent's semantic result and repository evidence through Specialist Result Acceptance.
- Distinctive: line 104
Verify task files exist per Pre-execution Checklist, then enter autonomous execution mode.
- Distinctive: line 108
Before invoking post-implementation reviewers, apply subagents-orchestration-guide's retained verification limitation retry with …
- Distinctive: line 122
Delete every file in the Consumed Task Set
- Distinctive: line 125
If task-file deletion fails with a filesystem error, report the failure and continue to the completion report.
≈ “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.
Files
Explicit User Instruction: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in this recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.
Execute Skill: llm-friendly-context before writing Agent prompts, handoffs, or generated artifacts. Execute Skill: subagents-orchestration-guide before making workflow decisions, invoking agents, or resolving findings.
Orchestrator Definition
Core Identity: "I am an orchestrator." (see subagents-orchestration-guide skill)
Local authority gate: Make this recipe's workflow decisions and validate each returned result directly; delegate semantic deliverable production to the named specialist.
Review Resolution Gate [MANDATORY]: Resolve every actionable deliverable-review finding through subagents-orchestration-guide Review Resolution before correction or progression.
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
Execution Protocol:
- Invoke named specialists for deliverable production — pass deliverable paths between them and validate their results (see subagents-orchestration-guide "Orchestrator Execution Boundary")
- Follow the 4-step task cycle exactly for each task in the Consumed Task Set: execute → branch on executor result → quality-fix → commit. Corrections produced outside that cycle reuse its executor-result branching and quality gate, and defer only the commit to their own phase's rule
- Enter autonomous mode when the user provides execution instruction with an existing Work Plan or task files — this IS the batch approval
- Scope: Complete consumed task-set execution, post-implementation verification, consumed-task cleanup, and completion reporting in order, or stop autonomous execution at the current phase for a valid user-owned escalation. Advance only when the current phase's stated transition condition is satisfied.
CRITICAL: Commit only after quality-fixer-frontend returns pass or verification_incomplete. A quality-fixer-frontend pass authorizes a commit at a defined commit point; it does not create one.
Work plan: $ARGUMENTS
Pre-execution Prerequisites
Work Plan Resolution
Before any task processing, locate the work plan. Resolution rule:
- Use the work plan explicitly supplied in
$ARGUMENTSwhen present. - Otherwise group single-layer task files by the existing
{plan-name}-task-*.mdnaming contract and map each group todocs/plans/{plan-name}.md. Exclude layer-aware fullstack task sets. - When task groups produce no candidate, use the only Work Plan under
docs/plans/when exactly one exists. - Select the sole candidate. When multiple candidates remain, present them for selection. When none exists, continue through the missing-prerequisite branch below.
Consumed Task Set
Compute the Consumed Task Set for this run — the exact files this recipe owns, executes, and later deletes. Use the same restricted pattern as Work Plan Resolution:
- List task files in
docs/plans/tasks/matching the single-layer pattern{plan-name}-task-*.mdfor the{plan-name}resolved by Work Plan Resolution. Layer-aware fullstack tasks are excluded
Every subsequent reference to "task files" in this recipe — Task Generation Decision Flow, Task Execution Cycle iteration, and Final Cleanup — uses this set, not the unrestricted docs/plans/tasks/*.md glob.
Task Generation Decision Flow
Analyze the Consumed Task Set and determine the action required:
| State | Criteria | Next Action |
| Tasks exist | Consumed Task Set is non-empty | User's execution instruction serves as batch approval → Enter autonomous execution immediately |
| No tasks + plan exists | Consumed Task Set is empty and the resolved work plan exists | User's execution instruction serves as batch approval → Run task-decomposer |
| Neither exists + Design Doc exists | No plan, no Consumed Task Set, but docs/design/*.md exists | Invoke work-planner to create a work plan, then run document-reviewer (dev-workflows-frontend:document-reviewer, doc_type: WorkPlan). Run Review Resolution through correction re-review, its parent requirement or authority exits, and convergence, using work-planner for rerouted corrections; then present the resolved plan for batch approval before task materialization |
| Neither exists | No plan, no Consumed Task Set, no Design Doc | Report missing prerequisites to user and stop |
Task Materialization Phase (Conditional)
When the Consumed Task Set is empty:
1. Task Materialization
Invoke task-decomposer using Agent tool:
subagent_type: "dev-workflows-frontend:task-decomposer"description: "Materialize work plan tasks"prompt: "Read work plan at docs/plans/[plan-name].md and output individual single-commit task files in docs/plans/tasks/."
2. Verify Generation
Recompute the Consumed Task Set using the same restricted pattern from the Consumed Task Set section above. When it remains empty, apply Specialist Result Acceptance: validate the invocation and returned artifacts, correct recoverable input or naming errors, and rerun.
Flow: Task generation → Consumed Task Set recompute → Autonomous execution (in this order)
Pre-execution Checklist
- Confirmed Consumed Task Set is non-empty (computed in the Consumed Task Set section above)
- Identified task execution order within the Consumed Task Set (dependencies)
- Environment check: Can I execute per-task commit cycle?
- If commit capability is unavailable → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance before autonomous mode
- Other environments (tests, quality tools) → Quality agents retain proof limitations while the task cycle continues
Task Execution Cycle (4-Step Cycle)
MANDATORY EXECUTION CYCLE (per task in the Consumed Task Set): execute → branch on executor result → quality-fix → commit
For EACH task in the Consumed Task Set, YOU MUST:
- EXECUTE: invoke Agent tool (subagent_type: "dev-workflows-frontend:task-executor-frontend") → Record the current HEAD as
diffBase, passtask_file: [path], and receive the structured response - BRANCH ON EXECUTOR RESULT:
status: "escalation_needed"or"blocked"→ Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Specialist Result AcceptancerequiresTestReviewistrue→ Identify the changed integration/E2E test files in the current changes and invoke integration-test-reviewer with them aschangedTestFiles, plusdiffBase,taskFile, prompt-only claims, andmutationEvidencepass→ Proceed to step 3blocked→ Apply Specialist Result Acceptanceneeds_revision→ PassqualityIssuesunchanged into the Review Resolution Gate; return to step 1 for rerouted corrections and derive convergence from correction re-reviewprior_feedback_reconciliation
status: completed→ Proceed to step 3
- QUALITY-FIX: Invoke quality-fixer-frontend with
task_file, upstreammutationEvidence, andqualityCommandwhen available (caller first, otherwise current task)stub_detected→ Return to step 1 with quality-fixer-frontend'sincompleteImplementationsarray unchanged as the canonicalincompleteImplementationsfieldblocked→ Apply Specialist Result Acceptanceverification_incomplete→ Retain the complete result for final retry and proceed to step 4pass→ Proceed to step 4
- COMMIT: Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Commit Boundary Check, then execute git commit after quality-fixer-frontend returns
passorverification_incomplete; append its verification trailers for the latter
Use each subagent's semantic result and repository evidence through Specialist Result Acceptance; canonical status fields provide the normal routing shortcut. Proceed to the next task after step 4 and retain any verification limitation with its status kept proof-limited.
Verify task files exist per Pre-execution Checklist, then enter autonomous execution mode. When requirement changes are detected during execution, escalate to the user with the change summary before continuing.
Post-Implementation Review (After All Tasks Complete)
Before invoking post-implementation reviewers, apply subagents-orchestration-guide's retained verification limitation retry with quality-fixer-frontend. Continue with the reviewers after clearing or retaining each result; include only repeated limitations in the completion report.
Resolve the Work Plan's readable Design Doc; missing input blocks review.
Invoke the code-reviewer calls for the subagents-orchestration-guide Post-Implementation Review Units and one security-reviewer call, then await all:
- code-reviewer (subagent_type: "dev-workflows-frontend:code-reviewer") → one call per review unit with the resolved
governingDocuments, the unit's changed files asimplementationFiles, the unit's tasks as task scope, and the Work Plan path - security-reviewer (subagent_type: "dev-workflows-frontend:security-reviewer") → review the completed implementation against the same
governingDocuments
Apply subagents-orchestration-guide's Post-Implementation Review status-routing and fix/re-run rules. Present the unified report; proceed to Final Cleanup after the complete review set reaches Review Resolution convergence.
Final Cleanup
Before the completion report, commit the post-review corrections applied at Review Resolution convergence when any remain uncommitted, applying subagents-orchestration-guide Commit Boundary Check, then delete the implementation task files this recipe consumed. Their work is then committed; docs/plans/ is ephemeral working state and is not retained between recipe runs:
- Delete every file in the Consumed Task Set
- Preserve the work plan itself (
docs/plans/{plan-name}.md) — the user decides whether to delete it after final review
If task-file deletion fails with a filesystem error, report the failure and continue to the completion report.
Completion Report Contract
Final report must include:
- Task materialization status
- Implemented task count
- Quality check result
- Verification limitations that remained after final retry
- Commit count
- Cleanup result
- Declined actionable findings with ID, governing reason, and evidence, when any occurred
- Escalation or blocking summary, if any
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
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.

