feature-implementation
Skill17 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Executes a feature's tasks.md against its designs, producing working, tested, committed code — the construction step of the per-feature loop. Runs after detailed-design and ui-design, autonomously: one task at a time in order, each task's done-when demonstrated by actually running it (tests pass, migrations apply), committed per task, until every task including the final verification task is checked. Tests are written per task in the project's established frameworks and are never weakened, skipped, or edited to pass. Diverging reality escalates to the design's amendment path — the skill implements the design; it never quietly redesigns. Bounded fix attempts per task (default 3); a blocked task stops with an honest WIP state, never a fake green. Use per feature, after its technical-design.md and ui-design.md exist. Trigger on "implement this feature", "implement the next feature", "execute the tasks", "build FEAT-N", or "continue the implementation". Scope: this feature only — no drive-by refactors.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ericwang200608-beep/LANYANT-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dss-time/repo-doctor-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- AIEraDev/Clypratheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- jpicklyk/task-orchestratortheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- tstapler/dotfilestheir own version, first seen Oct 10, 2026
- nafeeur/MaskShifttheir own version, first seen Sep 12, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- AIEraDev/Clypra★ 3.4ksame name
- jpicklyk/task-orchestrator★ 214same name
- tstapler/dotfiles★ 8same name
- aiagelab/aia-feature-workbench★ 2same name
- ericwang200608-beep/LANYANT-Skills★ 2same name
- nafeeur/MaskShift★ 2same name
- dss-time/repo-doctor-skills★ 1same name
- htnabe/skills★ 0same 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- acceptance-verificationSkill
- detailed-designSkill
- implementation-planningSkill
- initial-deploymentSkill
- pipeline-verifySkill
- project-scaffoldingSkill
- requirements-engineeringSkill
- sdlc-orchestratorSkill
- software-architectureSkill
- ui-designSkill
- ux-foundationsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
Fresh-context safety — disk is the memory: Every iteration is executable in a brand-new session: read tasks.md (checkbox state = exact …
- Distinctive: line 59
No drive-by refactors, no "while I'm here" improvements, no reformatting neighboring code.
- Very specific: line 70
Git is the checkpoint mechanism: Commit per completed task — FEAT-004 T3: implement POST /auth/login contract — so every task is a recovery …
- Distinctive: line 115
Read tasks.md, both design documents, the manifest entries for the feature's screens, and survey the code the next task touches — including …
- Very specific: line 122
Read references/execution-guide.md.
- Distinctive: line 129
Test artifacts use the inherited frameworks.
- Distinctive: line 137
Stop conditions (the only ones): all tasks checked.
- Distinctive: line 167
Every checked box has a passing done-when behind it and a commit that shows it — the git log reads as the execution log of tasks.md.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.
Files
Feature Implementation
The construction step of the per-feature loop: documents become code.
tasks.md is the program; this skill is the interpreter. It executes the
feature's tasks in order against technical-design.md (contracts, schema,
components), ui-design.md + the design manifest (screens), and the live
codebase — producing working, tested, committed code that replaces the
skeleton's stubs, ending developer-done: every task checked, including the
final verification task. The independent check is downstream
(acceptance verification); this skill never grades its own homework alone.
Seven disciplines make it rock-solid. Each targets a named failure mode of agentic implementation:
- The program is fixed; improvisation is escalation. Implement what
tasks.md says, per the design documents. Reality will sometimes beat the
design — that has two paths, never a third: small and design-consistent →
fix and record; anything changing a contract, schema, or acceptance
criterion → escalate to the design's amendment path (see
references/failure-and-escalation.md). The design documents stay true, or they change through their owner. (Kills: quietly designing around divergence.) - Fresh-context safety — disk is the memory. Every iteration is executable in a brand-new session: read tasks.md (checkbox state = exact position), read the designs, read the code, do one task, update state on disk, commit. No iteration depends on chat history. (Kills: context loss mid-feature; enables loop orchestration.)
- Done-when is demonstrated, never asserted. A checkbox flips only after the task's done-when actually ran and passed — the migration applied clean, the tests passed, the flow's E2E spec passed. And the anti-fake-green rule: tests are never weakened, skipped, deleted, or edited to make them pass; a failing test means the code or the design is wrong, and each has its path (fix, or escalate). (Kills: the single most corrosive agent failure — manufacturing green.)
- Bounded fix-loops — never thrash. Diagnose, fix, re-run — at most 3 attempts per task (per-project override: see Inputs). Exhausted → stop, leave the box unchecked, record the failure state honestly, WIP- commit, surface it. (Kills: infinite loops and desperation hacks.)
- Scope discipline — this feature only. Touch what the tasks require. No drive-by refactors, no "while I'm here" improvements, no reformatting neighboring code. Genuine tech-debt discoveries are recorded (the feature's escalations section), never acted on. (Kills: scope creep and unreviewable diffs.)
- Convention conformance by construction. Code follows the conventions technical-design §2 surveyed. UI realizes screens from ui-design.md/the manifest through the design system — tokens, never raw values; design.md's do/don'ts are binding — with the screenshot loop for code-native screens (bounded, per discipline 4). Boundary/lint rules run as part of every task's verification, not at the end. (Kills: convention drift and design-system forks.)
- Git is the checkpoint mechanism. Commit per completed task —
FEAT-004 T3: implement POST /auth/login contract— so every task is a recovery point, history is a readable execution log, and an orchestrator resumes from durable state. A blocked task WIP-commits, explicitly marked (FEAT-004 T4: WIP — blocked, see tasks.md note); a failing state is never committed as if green. (Kills: lost work and unrecoverable sessions.)
Inputs
Defaults; user paths win; source-gated citation throughout.
- The feature folder —
docs/features/FEAT-NNN-<slug>/: tasks.md (the program; checkbox state is the position), technical-design.md (contracts, schema, components, acceptance criteria), ui-design.md (screen specs). - The design manifest —
docs/design-manifest.json: each screen's strategy and source; tool-backed screens are realized from their locators, code-native screens from their specs. - The design system —
docs/design.md+docs/tokens.json: binding for all UI code (tokens, never raw values). - The live codebase — including the harness scaffolding installed (the test frameworks are inherited from it, never chosen here) and the boundary/lint rules.
- Conventions & commands — the agent-instructions file and
docs/scaffold-notes.md: run/test commands, conventions, and any per-project fix-attempt override (a stated "fix attempts: N" in the agent-instructions file; default 3 when absent). - No RTM writes. Implementation owns no RTM column — Design ref was written upstream; Test ref belongs to acceptance verification. Stated so nobody "helpfully" writes one.
Workflow
Phase 1 — Locate the feature and the position
The user names a feature (explicit naming is the only off-sequence path), or compute the default: walk the plan's build sequence in order; the first feature whose tasks.md exists and has unchecked tasks is it. Announce the resolution ("FEAT-004 is next per the plan's build sequence; 3 of 7 tasks remain") — never a menu. Within the feature, the position is the first unchecked task. If the folder or its design docs are missing, stop and say what's missing (the design pair runs first); never improvise a design.
Phase 2 — Load the context (fresh every session)
Read tasks.md, both design documents, the manifest entries for the feature's screens, and survey the code the next task touches — including any WIP note a previous session left. Read the run/test commands from the agent-instructions/ scaffold-notes. Trust disk over memory; a WIP note beats any recollection.
Phase 3 — Execute the task loop (autonomous)
Read references/execution-guide.md. For each task, in order, until done or
stopped:
- Implement per the design and the codebase conventions.
- Satisfy the done-when in its stated kind — author test artifacts where the done-when names them (behavioral tasks), demonstrate where it doesn't (structural/realization tasks); never skip verification either way. Test artifacts use the inherited frameworks; acceptance-level tests belong to the final verification task, the E2E extension to its pre-minted task.
- Demonstrate the done-when — run it. Pass → check the box, run the
boundary/lint rules, commit (
FEAT-NNN T<k>: <summary>). - Fail → the bounded fix-loop (
references/failure-and-escalation.md): diagnose, fix, re-run, at most the attempt bound; exhausted or design-divergent → stop/escalate per the guide.
Stop conditions (the only ones): all tasks checked; a task blocked after exhausted attempts; an escalation that changes the design; the user said stop. On any stop, state is already durable (checkboxes + commits + notes).
Phase 4 — Feature-done verification
The final task in tasks.md is this phase: every acceptance criterion in
technical-design §6 demonstrably passes (the acceptance-level tests exist and
run green), the feature's suite is green, boundary/lint rules pass, the E2E
task (when owed) passed, no WIP markers remain. Read
references/verification.md and run its checklist. This is developer-done
— the independent audit is acceptance verification's job, next in the loop.
Phase 5 — Deliver
Summarize: tasks completed (with the commit trail), tests added, escalations filed or recorded debt, and the live-computed progress line ("FEAT-004 implemented — 4 of 14 features developer-done"; computed, never stored). Handoff: acceptance verification independently audits this feature next.
Scope boundaries
Does not: redesign anything (contracts/schema/criteria change only via detailed-design's amendment path; screens via ui-design/the design system's); restructure tasks.md (a needed restructure means the design changed — go back one step); touch other features' code beyond what its tasks require; write the RTM; deploy.
What good looks like
- Every checked box has a passing done-when behind it and a commit that shows it — the git log reads as the execution log of tasks.md.
- Zero manufactured green: no test was weakened, skipped, or deleted to pass.
- Blocked states are honest and durable: unchecked box, WIP commit, a note a fresh session (or a human) can pick up cold.
- The diff is the feature — nothing else changed.
- UI code contains tokens, not raw values, and screens match their manifest sources.
- Escalations were filed the moment reality beat the design — never worked around, never batched to the end.
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.

