| name | incremental-skill |
| description | Delivers changes incrementally. Use when implementing any feature or change that touches more than one file. Use when you're about to write a large amount of code at once, or when a task feels too big to land in one step. |
| hints | ["Check existing project layouts for modular folder structures if available.","Implement code in thin vertical slices (e.g. database schema first, then api route, then frontend UI components).","Verify every single micro-slice immediately after implementation via test runner or build suites.","Wrap incomplete code blocks behind feature flags before merging to the main branch.",{"Adhere strictly to scope discipline":"document out-of-scope issues rather than attempting to refactor them immediately."}] |
Incremental Implementation
Overview
Build in thin vertical slices — implement one piece, test it, verify it, then expand. Avoid implementing an entire feature in one pass. Each increment should leave the system in a working, testable state. This is the execution discipline that makes large features manageable.
When to Use
- Implementing any multi-file change
- Building a new feature from a task breakdown
- Refactoring existing code
- Any time you're tempted to write more than ~100 lines before testing
When NOT to use: Single-file, single-function changes where the scope is already minimal.
The Increment Cycle
┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Implement ──→ Test ──→ Verify ──┐ │
│ ▲ │ │
│ └───── Commit ◄─────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ Next slice │
│ │
└──────────────────────────────────────┘
For each slice:
- Implement the smallest complete piece of functionality
- Test — run the test suite (or write a test if none exists)
- Verify — confirm the slice works as expected (tests pass, build succeeds, manual check)
- Commit -- save your progress with a descriptive message (see
git-workflow-and-versioning for atomic commit guidance)
- Move to the next slice — carry forward, don't restart
Slicing Strategies
Vertical Slices (Preferred)
Build one complete path through the stack:
Slice 1: Create a task (DB + API + basic UI)
→ Tests pass, user can create a task via the UI
Slice 2: List tasks (query + API + UI)
→ Tests pass, user can see their tasks
Slice 3: Edit a task (update + API + UI)
→ Tests pass, user can modify tasks
Slice 4: Delete a task (delete + API + UI + confirmation)
→ Tests pass, full CRUD complete
Each slice delivers working end-to-end functionality.
Contract-First Slicing
When backend and frontend need to develop in parallel:
Slice 0: Define the API contract (types, interfaces, OpenAPI spec)
Slice 1a: Implement backend against the contract + API tests
Slice 1b: Implement frontend against mock data matching the contract
Slice 2: Integrate and test end-to-end
Risk-First Slicing
Tackle the riskiest or most uncertain piece first:
Slice 1: Prove the WebSocket connection works (highest risk)
Slice 2: Build real-time task updates on the proven connection
Slice 3: Add offline support and reconnection
If Slice 1 fails, you discover it before investing in Slices 2 and 3.
Implementation Rules
Rule 0: Simplicity First
Before writing any code, ask: "What is the simplest thing that could work?"
After writing code, review it against these checks:
- Can this be done in fewer lines?
- Are these abstractions earning their complexity?
- Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?
- Am I building for hypothetical future requirements, or the current task?
SIMPLICITY CHECK:
✗ Generic EventBus with middleware pipeline for one notification
✓ Simple function call
✗ Abstract factory pattern for two similar components
✓ Two straightforward components with shared utilities
✗ Config-driven form builder for three forms
✓ Three form components
Three similar lines of code is better than a premature abstraction. Implement the naive, obviously-correct version first. Optimize only after correctness is proven with tests.
Rule 0.5: Scope Discipline
Touch only what the task requires.
Do NOT:
- "Clean up" code adjacent to your change
- Refactor imports in files you're not modifying
- Remove comments you don't fully understand
- Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"
- Modernize syntax in files you're only reading
If you notice something worth improving outside your task scope, note it — don't fix it:
NOTICED BUT NOT TOUCHING:
- src/utils/format.ts has an unused import (unrelated to this task)
- The auth middleware could use better error messages (separate task)
→ Want me to create tasks for these?
Rule 1: One Thing at a Time
Each increment changes one logical thing. Don't mix concerns:
Bad: One commit that adds a new component, refactors an existing one, and updates the build config.
Good: Three separate commits — one for each change.
Rule 2: Keep It Compilable
After each increment, the project must build and existing tests must pass. Don't leave the codebase in a broken state between slices.
Rule 3: Feature Flags for Incomplete Features
If a feature isn't ready for users but you need to merge increments:
const ENABLE_TASK_SHARING = process.env.FEATURE_TASK_SHARING === 'true';
if (ENABLE_TASK_SHARING) {
}
This lets you merge small increments to the main branch without exposing incomplete work.
Rule 4: Safe Defaults
New code should default to safe, conservative behavior:
export function createTask(data: TaskInput, options?: { notify?: boolean }) {
const shouldNotify = options?.notify ?? false;
}
Rule 5: Rollback-Friendly
Each increment should be independently revertable:
- Additive changes (new files, new functions) are easy to revert
- Modifications to existing code should be minimal and focused
- Database migrations should have corresponding rollback migrations
- Avoid deleting something in one commit and replacing it in the same commit — separate them
Working with Agents
When directing an agent to implement incrementally:
"Let's implement Task 3 from the plan.
Start with just the database schema change and the API endpoint.
Don't touch the UI yet — we'll do that in the next increment.
After implementing, run `npm test` and `npm run build` to verify
nothing is broken."
Be explicit about what's in scope and what's NOT in scope for each increment.
Increment Checklist
After each increment, verify:
Note: Run each verification command after a change that could affect it. After a successful run, don't repeat the same command unless the code has changed since — re-running on unchanged code adds no information.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|
| "I'll test it all at the end" | Bugs compound. A bug in Slice 1 makes Slices 2-5 wrong. Test each slice. |
| "It's faster to do it all at once" | It feels faster until something breaks and you can't find which of 500 changed lines caused it. |
| "These changes are too small to commit separately" | Small commits are free. Large commits hide bugs and make rollbacks painful. |
| "I'll add the feature flag later" | If the feature isn't complete, it shouldn't be user-visible. Add the flag now. |
| "This refactor is small enough to include" | Refactors mixed with features make both harder to review and debug. Separate them. |
| "Let me run the build command again just to be sure" | After a successful run, repeating the same command adds nothing unless the code has changed since. Run it again after subsequent edits, not as reassurance. |
Red Flags
- More than 100 lines of code written without running tests
- Multiple unrelated changes in a single increment
- "Let me just quickly add this too" scope expansion
- Skipping the test/verify step to move faster
- Build or tests broken between increments
- Large uncommitted changes accumulating
- Building abstractions before the third use case demands it
- Touching files outside the task scope "while I'm here"
- Creating new utility files for one-time operations
- Running the same build/test command twice in a row without any intervening code change
Required Checks
After completing all increments for a task:
Verification
After completing the skill, confirm:
