build-phase
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Builds ONE planned phase/milestone of a project from a written spec — reading the plan, honoring a per-task model assignment, staying in scope, verifying, and reporting. Use when implementing a discrete phase or work package from a PLAN.md/SPEC.md, especially when the plan assigns models to tasks.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nikhilw/structured-agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- aberson/skill-meshtheir own version, first seen Oct 24, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- nikhilw/structured-agentic-workflow★ 7same name
- aberson/skill-mesh★ 2same 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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brainstormingSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- debuggingSkill
- online-researchSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-reviewerSkill
- software-developmentSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writing-testsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 19
Keep the plan current (add newly-agreed work with its model.
- Distinctive: line 44
Orient: Read CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md; skim the target code for style and reusable utilities.
- Distinctive: line 58
Update the plan: Add newly-agreed work with its model assignment.
≈ “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
Build a Phase
Orchestrates building ONE phase of a planned project. This skill owns which phase, which model, scope control, plan hygiene, and reporting; it leans on the sibling build skills for the actual loop. Read the plan first — this is the how, the plan is the what.
Scope
This skill DOES:
- Locate the spec, scope the phase to its explicit done-criteria, and build it.
- Honor a per-task model assignment from the plan: run that work on the assigned model — delegating to a subagent when you are on a different one.
- Keep the plan current (add newly-agreed work with its model; prune completed
entries once their durable decisions live in code/
CLAUDE.md). - Report what changed, the test results, and the verification output.
This skill does NOT:
- Re-derive the build loop. The red→green→refactor TDD loop with DRY/YAGNI/KISS
and "verify it runs" is owned by
software-development; test-case selection bywriting-tests; failure diagnosis bydebugging; review bycode-review/security-review. Use those rather than restating them here. - Pull later-phase work forward, add speculative abstractions, or invent requirements the plan does not state.
git commit— the human controls commits.
Works with (same plugin — load as the phase needs)
brainstorming and writing-plans (turn a vague phase into a design/plan),
software-development (the build loop), writing-tests (which test cases),
debugging (failures), code-review / security-review (review). Each triggers
on its own description; this skill degrades gracefully if one is absent.
Required steps (make a TodoWrite item per step)
- Read the plan. Find the spec (commonly
PLAN.md/SPEC.md, or a file named inCLAUDE.md). Read the section for THIS phase; write its done-criteria to a note. ⛔ STOP and ask if no plan/spec exists or the phase is undefined. - Orient. Read
CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md; skim the target code for style and reusable utilities; infer the test / lint / typecheck / build commands from the repo. Use the project's existing commands; don't add tools without reason. - Confirm scope & model. Restate the done-criteria. If the plan assigns a
model to the task, run the implementation on that model — spawn a subagent with
that exact
model:when you are on a different one, and split the work if the phase lists more than one. Honor any project rule about who authors tests. ⛔ STOP if the assigned model or the scope is ambiguous. - Build the slice with the
software-developmentloop (test-first red→green→refactor;writing-testspicks the cases). Stay strictly inside this phase — no later-phase work, no speculative abstractions. - Verify it runs. Tests pass, typecheck/lint clean, build green, and the real behavior exercised — not just a typecheck. Don't leave dev servers running for automated checks.
- Update the plan. Add newly-agreed work with its model assignment; prune
completed entries once their durable decisions live in code/
CLAUDE.md. - Report. Files changed, test results (counts + names), verification output,
and any deviation from the plan with the reason. Do NOT
git commitunless asked.
Red flags (stop and correct)
| If you notice… | Do this |
| Coding before reading the plan section | Stop; read it, restate done-criteria |
| Implementing on a cheaper model than assigned | Switch to the assigned model / subagent |
| Building Phase N+1 while Phase N is unmet | Stop — one phase at a time |
| Writing code before a failing test | Defer to software-development — test first |
| Restating TDD / DRY / KISS rules here | Defer to software-development / writing-tests |
About to git commit | Don't — the human owns commits |
Done when
- The phase's done-criteria are met and covered by tests written test-first.
- You ran the real behavior and observed it working (not just a typecheck).
- The plan reflects reality (new work added with its model, completed work pruned).
- You reported files changed, results, verification output, and any deviation.
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.

