agentleFS
whawkinsivwhawkinsiv/claude-code-skills/skills/build/SKILL.md

build

Skill258 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use this skill when a solo founder is about to build or add to their product with Claude Code: 'build my MVP,' 'let's build this,' 'add this feature,' 'write a spec,' 'scope the first version,' 'Claude keeps breaking things,' or 'we're going in circles.' Checks that someone has paid first, scopes the first version from the steps the founder already does by hand, writes a short spec, and builds one piece at a time with a re-test after each piece. Not for deciding what form the product takes (use is-this-an-app) or for the pre-launch check (use go-live).

156 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use backprop, favicon and 7 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • JuliusBrusseeSkill

    backprop

    Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • cpiprintSkill

    favicon

    Generate favicons from a source image

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • JuliusBrusseeSkill

    deepen

    Optional design-improvement pass for when you have spare usage to drain. Finds the shallowest modules in the code the spec touches, researches a deeper design, and proposes refactors that shrink interfaces and hide decisions — behavior held constant, tests green before and after. Proposes §I/§V/§T edits, never silent rewrites. Triggers when the user says "deepen this", "improve the design", "this module feels shallow", "pull complexity down", "use spare budget on the codebase", or invokes /ck:deepen. Leans on the codebase-design skill's deep-module vocabulary when present.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • synaptiaiSkill

    gate

    Create a BDSK review_gate artifact. Defines a checkpoint that controls whether generated output may proceed toward acceptance. Use when defining quality, security, or scope gates for execution plans.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • TrevokeSkill

    define

    Use when a new feature request, bug report, or work request needs requirements defined before implementation

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • HAR5HA-7663Skill

    shape

    Plan the UX and UI for a feature before writing code. Runs a structured discovery interview, then produces a design brief that guides implementation. Use during the planning phase to establish design direction, constraints, and strategy before any code is written.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 142 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    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:

    Ask: "How many people pay for this today, and do you deliver it by hand now?"

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask these five questions to cut the scope:

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Write it in the conversation and get the founder's agreement before you build:

    line 34
  4. Distinctive:

    Run it and use it the way a customer would.

    line 51
  5. Distinctive:

    Check that the earlier pieces still work: sign up, do the core action, see the result.

    line 52
  6. Distinctive:

    Commit, with a message that says what works now.

    line 53
  7. Distinctive:

    Before the first customer uses it, make sure these exist.

    line 56
  8. Distinctive:

    After 2 failed fixes,: stop fixing. The diagnosis is probably wrong.

    line 66
  9. Distinctive:

    If you are going in circles,: start a fresh session. Hand over three things: what exists, what works, and what is next.

    line 68

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 142 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

Build

Build the smallest version that paying customers need, one piece at a time. Every piece is tested before the next one starts.

Step 1: Check the gate

Ask: "How many people pay for this today, and do you deliver it by hand now?"

  • Paying customers and written manual steps: continue.
  • No paying customers: say once, plainly, that building first is the most common way founders lose months, and suggest the manual delivery test in validate and first-customers. If the founder still wants to build, build. It is their decision.

Step 2: Scope the first version

Start from the founder's written manual steps, if they exist. The first version automates the one step that takes the most time per customer. Every other step stays manual, or uses a tool the founder already has: a form, a spreadsheet, a payment link, email.

Ask these five questions to cut the scope:

  1. What is the one problem this version solves?
  2. Who is the one person who has it most?
  3. What is the least they must see and do to get the result?
  4. What can stay manual or rough behind the scenes?
  5. What is the fastest path to a real customer doing a real task?

Target: the first version ships in about a week. If it is bigger, cut until it is not.

Step 3: Write a short spec

Write it in the conversation and get the founder's agreement before you build:

What users do: <2-3 sentences: action and outcome>
Main flow: <3-5 steps when everything goes right>
What can go wrong: <2-4 cases, and what the user sees for each>
Not in this version: <the list that prevents scope creep>

Describe what the user sees and does, not how the code works. The founder judges behavior. The code is your job.

Step 4: Build one piece at a time

A piece takes 1–3 hours: sign-up, one core workflow, one settings page. "The dashboard with all integrations" is not a piece.

For each piece:

  1. Build it.
  2. Run it and use it the way a customer would.
  3. Check that the earlier pieces still work: sign up, do the core action, see the result. New code often breaks old features. Catch it now.
  4. Commit, with a message that says what works now.
  5. Tell the founder what to try, in one or two plain sentences.

Before the first customer uses it, make sure these exist. AI-built apps often ship without them:

  • error tracking, so the founder knows when something breaks
  • a helpful 404 page and error page instead of a blank screen or a stack trace
  • loading, empty, and error states on every screen that shows data (see beautify)
  • a page title, description, and share image, so links look right when shared
  • a favicon
  • a visible way for customers to contact the founder

Step 5: When stuck

  • After 2 failed fixes, stop fixing. The diagnosis is probably wrong. Re-read the error, check what changed recently, and say what you now think the cause is.
  • After 3 failed fixes, change the approach: a simpler design, or a workaround that ships, with the proper fix later.
  • If you are going in circles, start a fresh session. Hand over three things: what exists, what works, and what is next.
  • If a fresh session also fails, suggest a small paid task for a human developer. Define the task, and pay for a few hours, not a project.

Rules

  • Use what the project already uses. For a new project, choose a common, well-documented stack and say why in one sentence. Do not switch tools in the middle of a build.
  • Build integrations only when 3 or more paying customers ask. Until then, an automation tool or a manual step is enough.
  • Do not build for scale. There is no scale yet. Speed and clarity beat clever architecture.
  • Do not add features beyond the spec. Note them under "Not in this version" and move on.

Output

After each piece:

Built: <what works now, in plain words>
Try it: <the steps the founder should click through>
Checked: <the earlier pieces still work: yes / what broke>
Next piece: <one item>

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.