recipe-fullstack-implement
Skill712 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrate full-cycle implementation across backend and frontend layers
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-buildSkill
- recipe-front-designSkill
- recipe-front-planSkill
- recipe-front-reviewSkill
- recipe-fullstack-buildSkill
- 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
15 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 6 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.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 21
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
- Very specific: line 25
MANDATORY: Read references/monorepo-flow.md from subagents-orchestration-guide skill BEFORE proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 32
Enter autonomous mode: only after "batch approval for entire implementation phase"
- Distinctive: line 52
When continuing existing flow, verify:
- Distinctive: line 64
Create separate Design Docs per layer (see monorepo-flow.md "Layer Context in Design Doc Creation")
- Distinctive: line 67
Run design-sync for cross-layer consistency verification
- Distinctive: line 81
When user responds to questions:
- Distinctive: line 82
Update the orchestrator-owned convergence record from the answer, then update the Structural Scale judgment through the Small evidence gate.
- Distinctive: line 97
If commit capability is unavailable → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance before autonomous mode
- Very specific: line 101
Commit only after the layer-appropriate quality-fixer returns pass or verification_incomplete.
- Very specific: line 116
Check executor status before quality-fixer (escalation check).
- Very specific: line 120
Run the layer quality-fixer after the executor and any required test-review loop completes, passing task_file, upstream mutationEvidence, …
- Very specific: line 144
Delete every file matching docs/plans/tasks/{plan-name}-backend-task-*.md and docs/plans/tasks/{plan-name}-frontend-task-*.md (the …
- Distinctive: line 147
If task-file deletion fails, include the filesystem error in the completion report and finish the report with the implementation result.
- Distinctive: line 152
After acceptance-test-generator execution, when invoking work-planner (subagent_type: "dev-workflows:work-planner"), communicate:
≈ “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.
Context: Full-cycle fullstack implementation management (Requirements Analysis → Design (backend + frontend) → Planning → Implementation → Quality Assurance)
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.
Required Reference
MANDATORY: Read references/monorepo-flow.md from subagents-orchestration-guide skill BEFORE proceeding. Follow the Fullstack Flow defined there instead of the standard single-layer flow.
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 monorepo-flow.md for the design phase (multiple Design Docs, design-sync, vertical slicing)
- Follow subagents-orchestration-guide skill for all other orchestration rules (stop points, structured responses, escalation)
- Enter autonomous mode only after "batch approval for entire implementation phase"
At each Agent invocation below, build the prompt as a mechanical extraction: copy the named source values into the exact fields, apply only the declared serialization, then invoke immediately.
Execution Decision Flow
1. Current Situation Assessment
Instruction Content: $ARGUMENTS
Assess the current situation:
| Situation Pattern | Decision Criteria | Next Action |
| New Requirements | No existing work, new feature/fix request | Start with requirement-analyzer |
| Flow Continuation | Existing docs/tasks present, continuation directive | Identify next step in monorepo-flow.md |
| Quality Errors | Error detection, test failures, build errors | Execute quality-fixer (layer-appropriate) |
| Ambiguous | Intent unclear, multiple interpretations possible | Confirm with user |
2. Progress Verification for Continuation
When continuing existing flow, verify:
- Latest artifacts (PRD/ADR/Design Docs/Work Plan/Tasks)
- Current phase position (Requirements/Design/Planning/Implementation/QA)
- Identify next step in monorepo-flow.md
3. Design through Planning Phase
Execute Skill: external-resource-context before running the external resource hearing in monorepo-flow.md.
Follow monorepo-flow.md for the current Large or Medium design-through-planning flow. Its Large table and Medium step range define the required steps, agent invocations, and stop points.
Key points to enforce as the orchestrator runs the flow:
- Create separate Design Docs per layer (see monorepo-flow.md "Layer Context in Design Doc Creation")
- Frontend Design Doc references an applicable approved UI Spec and reuses applicable ui-analyzer output produced earlier in the flow
- Execute document-reviewer once per Design Doc (separate invocations)
- Run design-sync for cross-layer consistency verification
- Pass all Design Docs to work-planner (subagent_type: "dev-workflows:work-planner") with vertical slicing instruction
- Pass the Work Plan to document-reviewer (
doc_type: WorkPlan) and request batch approval after Review Resolution converges and governing-source conflicts are resolved
4. Bind the Applicable Flow
After Structural Scale is determined, follow only that scale's applicable path. Treat each applicable design, review, approval, planning, implementation, verification, cleanup, and reporting phase as a gate. Advance only when the current phase's stated evidence or approval exists; skip only branches whose stated condition is false.
After requirement-analyzer [Stop]
Execute Skill: requirement-convergence before running the hearing protocol.
Build and judge the convergence record by the rules in references/criteria.md of the requirement-convergence skill, from the user's retained wording, using requirement-analyzer scopeEvidence and costEvidence as supporting facts, then run the requirement-convergence hearing protocol. After the user answers the requirements stop, apply the subagents-orchestration-guide Small evidence gate before assigning the final Structural Scale; when the gate is unresolved, invoke codebase-analyzer before routing.
When user responds to questions:
- Update the orchestrator-owned convergence record from the answer, then update the Structural Scale judgment through the Small evidence gate.
- Re-execute requirement-analyzer only when the answer changes the repository analysis target or scope evidence.
- Repeat the hearing until every convergence field is
readyorweak-but-explicit, then proceed with the resulting Scale.
Subagents Orchestration Guide Compliance Execution
Pre-execution Checklist (MANDATORY):
- Read monorepo-flow.md reference
- Confirmed relevant flow steps
- Identified current progress position
- Clarified next step
- Recognized stopping points
- one complete-scope codebase-analyzer result included before Design Doc creation
- code-verifier included before document-reviewer for each Design Doc
- 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
Required Flow Compliance:
- Commit only after the layer-appropriate quality-fixer returns
passorverification_incomplete; a quality-fixer pass authorizes a commit at a defined commit point rather than creating one - Obtain user approval before Edit/Write/MultiEdit outside autonomous mode
Mandatory Orchestrator Responsibilities
Task Execution Quality Cycle (Filename-Pattern-Based)
Agent routing by task filename (see monorepo-flow.md reference):
*-backend-task-* → dev-workflows:task-executor + dev-workflows:quality-fixer
*-frontend-task-* → dev-workflows-frontend:task-executor-frontend + dev-workflows-frontend:quality-fixer-frontendRules:
- Execute ONE task completely before starting next (each task goes through the full 4-step cycle via Agent tool, using the correct executor per filename pattern)
- Check executor status before quality-fixer (escalation check). When
requiresTestReviewistrue, identify the changed integration/E2E test files in the current changes and invoke integration-test-reviewer with them aschangedTestFiles, plusdiffBase,taskFile, prompt claims, andmutationEvidence, then branch on its status:pass→ Continue to rule 3blocked→ Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Specialist Result Acceptanceneeds_revision→ PassqualityIssuesunchanged into the Review Resolution Gate, return rerouted corrections to the layer executor, and continue to rule 3 only when correction re-reviewprior_feedback_reconciliationestablishes convergence
- Run the layer quality-fixer after the executor and any required test-review loop completes, passing
task_file, upstreammutationEvidence, andqualityCommandwhen available (caller first, otherwise current task) - Check quality-fixer response:
stub_detected→ Return to executor with the layer quality-fixer'sincompleteImplementationsarray unchanged as the canonicalincompleteImplementationsfieldblocked→ Apply Specialist Result Acceptanceverification_incomplete→ Retain the complete result for final retry and proceed to commitpass→ Proceed to commit
- Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Commit Boundary Check before each commit; append its verification trailers when the quality-fixer result is
verification_incomplete
Post-Implementation Review (After All Tasks Complete)
Apply subagents-orchestration-guide's retained verification limitation retry with each layer's quality-fixer before the document-dependent reviewers. Continue after clearing or retaining each result and report only repeated limitations.
Resolve all readable Design Docs from the Work Plan, or the Work Plan itself when none exist; 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:code-reviewer") → one call per review unit with the resolved
governingDocumentslist, the unit's changed files asimplementationFiles, the unit's tasks as task scope, and the Work Plan path - security-reviewer (subagent_type: "dev-workflows:security-reviewer") → review the completed implementation against the same
governingDocumentslist
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 matching
docs/plans/tasks/{plan-name}-backend-task-*.mdanddocs/plans/tasks/{plan-name}-frontend-task-*.md(the{plan-name}derived from the work plan path used in this run) - 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, include the filesystem error in the completion report and finish the report with the implementation result.
In the completion report, list each declined actionable finding with its ID, governing reason, and evidence when any occurred.
Test Information Communication
After acceptance-test-generator execution, when invoking work-planner (subagent_type: "dev-workflows:work-planner"), communicate:
testSkeletons: every non-null path fromgeneratedFiles
Execution Method
Deliverable production is executed through the specialist selected by monorepo-flow.md and subagents-orchestration-guide; workflow decisions and returned-result validation remain with the orchestrator.
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.

