Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Outline
Run .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. All paths must be absolute. For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
Check checklists status (if FEATURE_DIR/checklists/ exists):
Scan all checklist files in the checklists/ directory
For each checklist, count:
Total items: All lines matching - [ ] or - [X] or - [x]
FAIL: One or more checklists have incomplete items
If any checklist is incomplete:
Display the table with incomplete item counts
STOP and ask: "Some checklists are incomplete. Do you want to proceed with implementation anyway? (yes/no)"
Wait for user response before continuing
If user says "no" or "wait" or "stop", halt execution
If user says "yes" or "proceed" or "continue", proceed to step 3
If all checklists are complete:
Display the table showing all checklists passed
Automatically proceed to step 3
Load and analyze the implementation context:
REQUIRED: Read tasks.md for the complete task list and execution plan
REQUIRED: Read plan.md for tech stack, architecture, and file structure
IF EXISTS: Read data-model.md for entities and relationships
IF EXISTS: Read contracts/ for API specifications and test requirements
IF EXISTS: Read research.md for technical decisions and constraints
IF EXISTS: Read quickstart.md for integration scenarios
Project Setup Verification:
REQUIRED: Create/verify ignore files based on actual project setup:
Detection & Creation Logic:
Check if the following command succeeds to determine if the repository is a git repo (create/verify .gitignore if so):
git rev-parse --git-dir 2>/dev/null
Check if Dockerfile* exists or Docker in plan.md → create/verify .dockerignore
Check if .eslintrc* exists → create/verify .eslintignore
Check if eslint.config.* exists → ensure the config's ignores entries cover required patterns
Check if .prettierrc* exists → create/verify .prettierignore
Check if .npmrc or package.json exists → create/verify .npmignore (if publishing)
Check if terraform files (*.tf) exist → create/verify .terraformignore
Check if .helmignore needed (helm charts present) → create/verify .helmignore
If ignore file already exists: Verify it contains essential patterns, append missing critical patterns only
If ignore file missing: Create with full pattern set for detected technology
Common Patterns by Technology (from plan.md tech stack):
Polish and validation: Unit tests, performance optimization, documentation
Code style discipline (overrides any contrary habit from spec-driven prompting):
No spec IDs in code. Do not write FR-002, SC-008, US2, T031, feature 007, or similar cross-references in source comments, doc comments, struct fields, or test names. Cross-references belong in spec.md / plan.md / tasks.md / the PR description — code rots when it carries them. Test names should describe the behavior under test, not the requirement ID.
Default to no comments. Only write a comment when the WHY is non-obvious (a hidden constraint, a subtle invariant, a workaround for a specific bug, behavior that would surprise a reader). If removing the comment wouldn't confuse a future reader, don't write it.
Don't explain WHAT the code does. Well-named identifiers do that. No "Step 1 / Step 2" procedural comments. No section-divider comments like // --- Feature X ---. No comments restating the next few lines.
Compact doc comments. Public APIs may carry a docstring, but one or two sentences is the target. Don't write multi-paragraph essays describing every fallback path, every historical alternative, or every wire-shape detail — that lives in the spec.
No procedural narration. Don't annotate test bodies with "Step 1: …", "Step 2: …", "First fetch: …", "Second fetch: …". The test code is self-explanatory.
No "feature X" tagging on struct fields, tests, modules, or CSS sections. When the feature ships, the tag is dead weight.
Respect repository-level instructions: re-read CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md before writing code; those instructions take precedence over the patterns this skill might otherwise suggest.
Progress tracking and error handling:
Report progress after each completed task
Halt execution if any non-parallel task fails
For parallel tasks [P], continue with successful tasks, report failed ones
Provide clear error messages with context for debugging
Suggest next steps if implementation cannot proceed
IMPORTANT For completed tasks, make sure to mark the task off as [X] in the tasks file.
Completion validation:
Verify all required tasks are completed
Check that implemented features match the original specification
Validate that tests pass and coverage meets requirements
Confirm the implementation follows the technical plan
Report final status with summary of completed work
Note: This command assumes a complete task breakdown exists in tasks.md. If tasks are incomplete or missing, suggest running /speckit.tasks first to regenerate the task list.