recipe-implement
Skill712 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrate the complete implementation lifecycle from requirements to deployment
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nolte/claude-goosetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- shinpr/codex-workflowstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- shinpr/codex-workflows★ 39same name
- nolte/claude-goose★ 1same 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-fullstack-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
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
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.
- Distinctive: line 27
When flow specifies "Execute document-reviewer" → Execute it immediately
- Distinctive: line 29
Enter autonomous mode: after user confirmation at the Requirements stop for Small, or Medium/Large batch approval
- Distinctive: line 49
When continuing existing flow, verify:
- Very specific: line 57
Verify scale-based flow (Large/Medium/Small scale)
- Distinctive: line 68
When user responds to questions:
- Distinctive: line 69
Update the orchestrator-owned convergence record from the answer, then update the Structural Scale judgment through the Small evidence gate.
- Distinctive: line 88
If commit capability is unavailable → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance before autonomous mode
- Very specific: line 92
Commit only after quality-fixer returns pass or verification_incomplete.
- Very specific: line 134
Delete every file matching docs/plans/tasks/{plan-name}-task-*.md (the {plan-name} derived from the work plan path used in this run)
- Distinctive: line 137
If task-file deletion fails, include the filesystem error in the completion report and finish the report with the implementation result.
- Distinctive: line 144
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 implementation management (Requirements Analysis → Design → 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.
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 subagents-orchestration-guide skill flows exactly:
- Execute one step at a time in the defined flow (Large/Medium/Small scale)
- When flow specifies "Execute document-reviewer" → Execute it immediately
- Stop at every
[Stop: ...]marker → Wait for explicit user confirmation before proceeding
- Enter autonomous mode after user confirmation at the Requirements stop for Small, or Medium/Large batch approval
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 sub-agents.md flow |
| Quality Errors | Error detection, test failures, build errors | Execute quality-fixer |
| Ambiguous | Intent unclear, multiple interpretations possible | Confirm with user |
2. Progress Verification for Continuation
When continuing existing flow, verify:
- Latest artifacts (PRD/ADR/Design Doc/Work Plan/Tasks)
- Current phase position (Requirements/Design/Planning/Implementation/QA)
- Identify next step in subagents-orchestration-guide skill corresponding flow
3. Next Action Execution
MANDATORY subagents-orchestration-guide skill reference:
- Verify scale-based flow (Large/Medium/Small scale)
- Confirm autonomous execution mode conditions
- Recognize mandatory stopping points
- Invoke next sub-agent defined in flow
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. - For Small, the user's requirement confirmation authorizes the direct implementation scope; proceed to the 4-step cycle without a Work Plan.
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.
Subagents Orchestration Guide Compliance Execution
Pre-execution Checklist (MANDATORY):
- Confirmed relevant subagents-orchestration-guide skill flow
- Identified current progress position
- Clarified next step
- Recognized stopping points
- codebase-analyzer included before Design Doc creation (Medium/Large scale)
- code-verifier included before document-reviewer for Design Doc review (Medium/Large scale)
- 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 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 (4-Step Cycle per Task)
Per-task cycle (complete each task before starting next):
- Agent tool (subagent_type: "dev-workflows:task-executor") → Record the current HEAD as
diffBase; passtask_file: [path]when one exists, otherwise passdirect_scopeas the convergence record's outcome and exclusions,governing_sources,target_paths, andobservable_verification - Check task-executor response:
status: escalation_neededorblocked→ 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, optionaltaskFile, 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
- Implementation is complete with supporting repository evidence → Proceed to step 3
- Otherwise → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance
- quality-fixer → Pass
task_filewhen one exists; otherwise copy step 1direct_scope,governing_sources, andobservable_verificationinputs unchanged, includingcorrection_findingswhen supplied. Add upstreammutationEvidenceandqualityCommandwhen available (caller first, otherwise current task)stub_detected→ Return to step 1 with quality-fixer'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
- git commit → Apply subagents-orchestration-guide Commit Boundary Check, then execute with Bash after
passorverification_incomplete; append its verification trailers for the latter
Post-Implementation Review (Medium/Large, After All Tasks Complete)
Apply subagents-orchestration-guide's retained verification limitation retry before the document-dependent reviewers. Continue after clearing or retaining each result and report only repeated limitations.
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: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: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.
For Small, skip this document-dependent review. Retry a retained verification limitation once after the task commit; complete with observed observable_verification evidence and report any proof that remains unavailable.
Final Cleanup
For Medium/Large, 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}-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.
Small has no task-file cleanup.
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 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.

