| name | sp-coding-agent |
| description | Use when a coding task is vague or under-specified. Extracts missing context across 9 code-native categories before the agent executes file changes. Designed for OpenAI Codex, Anthropic Claude Code, and Google Gemini Code Assist. |
| metadata | {"author":"cuongpt083"} |
SMART POLE Coding Agent Skill
This Skill implements the SMART POLE framework adapted for AI Coding Agents. Unlike the chatbot versions (Instructor/Enforcer), this skill operates on codebases — scanning project files, extracting context automatically, and ensuring the agent has enough information before writing code.
How to Load This Skill
- Set system prompt: Load
references/system-prompt.md as the agent's system prompt (e.g., paste into AGENTS.md, .claude/system_prompt.md, or the agent's system role configuration).
- Provide reference files: Make
references/logic.md, references/overlap-rules.md, and references/coding-agent-categories.md available in the agent's context or knowledge base.
- Invoke: Give the agent a vague or specific coding task. The agent will ORIENT (scan the codebase), CLASSIFY the task type, EXTRACT SP-categories, and check execution gates before touching any file.
Reference Files
| File | Purpose |
|---|
references/system-prompt.md | 🔴 Required — Full Coding Agent system prompt (v4.0). Load as the agent's system instructions. |
references/logic.md | Framework logic: category definitions, weighted scoring, task-type classification, generic-to-coding task mapping. |
references/overlap-rules.md | Atom overlap rules, conflict detection, Functional Gravity principle, and the One Atom One Slot rule. |
references/coding-agent-categories.md | Code-native sub-dimensions for all 9 SP-categories with auto-detection sources and hard-stop gate definitions. |
When to Use This Skill
- A user gives a vague coding task ("fix the login bug", "add pagination")
- Before an agent starts multi-file code changes
- When a task involves unfamiliar parts of a codebase
- Migration or refactoring tasks where scope control is critical
How It Works
- ORIENT: Agent scans project root (
README.md, AGENTS.md, package.json, Dockerfile, etc.)
- CLASSIFY: Determine task type (Bug Fix / Feature / Refactor / Migration / Infra)
- EXTRACT: Map request to 9 code-native SP-categories
- DETECT FLAWS: Identify missing context, overlaps, and conflicts; ask user if critical
- PLAN: Create implementation plan with file-level scope
- EXECUTE: Apply file changes within approved scope
- VERIFY: Run tests, lint, type-check; self-heal on failures
The 9 Code-Native Categories
| Abbrev | Category | Code Meaning | Priority |
|---|
| S | Style | Code standards, linting, architecture pattern | 🟢 Auto-detect |
| M | Mastery | Developer expertise level — split into Domain vs Task (see below) | 🟡 Contextualizer |
| A | Aim | Definition of Done, acceptance criteria, success metric | 🔴 CORE |
| R | Resource | Allowed/forbidden deps, API quotas, team contacts, internal docs | 🟡 Contextualizer |
| T | Time | Deadline, urgency level (hotfix vs long-term), sprint constraints | 🟢 Accelerator |
| P | People | Team conventions, reviewer persona, implicit values & preferences | 🟡 Contextualizer |
| O | Outline | Authorized file scope, folder boundaries, what NOT to touch | 🔴 CORE |
| L | Locale | Runtime ecosystem, language/framework version, legal/infra constraints | 🟡/🔴 CONDITIONAL |
| E | Example | Reference code snippets, similar PRs, anti-pattern stories | 🟡/🟢 CONDITIONAL |
Category Deep-Dives (SP-Flaw Prevention)
⏱️ T — Time: Urgency Only, Not Quality
T answers: "How much time do I have?" — deadline, sprint slot, hotfix vs planned refactor.
⚠️ T-Flaw (Category Overlap): Do NOT put acceptance criteria or content depth requirements inside T.
- ❌ Wrong:
T: "Must be thorough enough to not need follow-up" ← this is an A-atom
- ✅ Right:
T: "Hotfix — must ship in 2 hours" / T: "Non-urgent — next sprint"
Quality gates and success criteria belong in Aim (A) or Outline (O), not Time.
👥 P — People: Make Implicit Traits Explicit
P answers: "Who is involved and what are their hidden assumptions?"
Beyond team conventions, always surface:
- Reviewer Persona: Does the reviewer prioritize security over speed? Hate over-engineered abstractions?
- Implicit Values: Prefers functional style? Allergic to ORMs? Values minimal diffs?
- Psychological traits: Team culture (consensus-driven vs individual autonomy), risk tolerance
⚠️ P-Flaw (Implicit People): Do NOT leave personality traits and values implicit — the agent will guess wrong.
- ❌ Wrong: Omitting that the team hates
any types in TypeScript
- ✅ Right:
P: "Reviewer flags every use of 'any' in TypeScript — use strict types always"
🎓 M — Mastery: Always Split Domain vs Task
M answers: "What does the developer know — and in which dimension?"
Always decompose Mastery into two parts:
| Dimension | Meaning | Example |
|---|
| M-Domain | Expertise in tech stack / role | Senior React, Junior DevOps |
| M-Task | Experience with this specific task type | Never integrated Stripe before, First time with WebSocket |
⚠️ M-Flaw (Mastery Scope): Missing the gap between Domain and Task mastery causes the agent to pitch solutions that are technically fluent but practically inappropriate.
- ❌ Wrong:
M: "Senior Developer" ← domain only, no task dimension
- ✅ Right:
M-Domain: "Senior React" | M-Task: "Novice — first time implementing OAuth2 flow" → agent uses familiar React patterns but explains OAuth2 step-by-step
🧰 R — Resource: Tools + People + Data
R answers: "What weapons do I have — and what is forbidden?"
Resource includes three dimensions, not just software:
| Dimension | Examples |
|---|
| Tools | Allowed libs/frameworks, CI/CD pipeline, dev environment |
| People / Network | Team members who can review, external consultants, on-call SMEs |
| Data / Docs | Internal wikis, API docs, log access (/var/log/auth.log), Sentry |
⚠️ R-Flaw (Resource Underutilization): Listing only software tools leaves the agent unable to suggest "ask the security team" or "check the Confluence runbook."
- ❌ Wrong:
R: "Jira, Notion" ← tools only
- ✅ Right:
R-Tools: "Jira" | R-Network: "Security team available for review" | R-Data: "Sentry logs + Redis CLI access"
Also supply Negative Atoms (what is forbidden):
R-Forbidden: "No new npm deps without approval, no changes to DB schema"
📌 E — Example: The Anchor Atom
E answers: "What should the output look like — concretely?"
In coding context, a Gold Standard E-atom is a matched pair:
| E-atom Type | What it looks like |
|---|
| Code snippet | Before/after code block showing the pattern to follow |
| Similar PR | Link or description of a past PR that solved a comparable bug |
| Input/Output pair | Expected test case: input state → expected behavior |
| Anti-example (Story) | "Last time we did X this way, it broke Y — avoid this pattern" |
⚠️ E-Flaw (Missing Anchor): Without an Example atom, the agent mimics its training data defaults, not your codebase conventions.
- ❌ Weak:
E: "Make it look clean" ← too vague, gives agent no anchor
- ✅ Gold:
E: "Follow the pattern in auth_service.py:L45–80 — token invalidation before session update" or E: "This Sentry trace shows the failure chain: A→B→C"
Always ask: "Is there a similar PR, a log trace, or a code section I want the agent to mimic?"
Auto-Extraction Sources
| Source File | SP-Categories Extracted |
|---|
.eslintrc / ruff.toml | S (Style) |
package.json / pyproject.toml | R (Resource), L (Locale) |
Dockerfile / docker-compose.yml | L (Locale), R (Resource) |
AGENTS.md / SKILL.md | P (People), S (Style) |
CI/CD configs (.github/workflows/) | R (Resource), A (Aim quality gates) |
Coding Task Classification
| Task Type | Primary SP-cats | Agent Behavior |
|---|
| Bug Fix | A, E, O | Minimal change + regression test |
| Feature | A, O, R | Plan → implement → test |
| Refactor | O, E, P | Preserve behavior, improve structure |
| Migration | L, R, T | Incremental, backward compatible |
| Infra | L, R, A | Infrastructure as Code, idempotent |
Task Taxonomy Mapping (Generic → Coding)
Use this mapping to bridge generic SMART POLE task types in references/logic.md with coding-agent task types.
Generic Task Type (references/logic.md) | Coding Task Type(s) | Default Interpretation |
|---|
| Deterministic | Bug Fix, Refactor | Behavior is constrained; prioritize reproducibility and regression tests |
| Generative | Feature | New capability; prioritize clear DoD and explicit scope boundaries |
| Advisory | Refactor, Migration, Infra | Architecture/process guidance; convert advice into testable acceptance criteria before coding |
| Discovery | Feature (spike), Migration (assessment) | Exploration is allowed, but execution stays minimal and reversible |
| Compliance | Infra, Migration, Bug Fix | Regulatory/security constraints are first-class acceptance criteria |
Execution Gates (Hard Stops)
Do not execute code changes until all hard-stop gates pass:
- Gate A (Aim): At least one testable acceptance criterion exists.
- Gate O (Outline): Authorized scope is explicit (or defaults to minimal scope) and forbidden scope is respected.
- Gate Conflict: All
SP-conflict items are resolved by user decision.
- Gate Overlap: Apply
One Atom, One Slot from references/overlap-rules.md; no double-counted atoms.
- Gate Score: Weighted readiness score is >= 67% of the applicable max score (per
references/logic.md task-type weighting).
If any gate fails:
- Stop before
EXECUTE
- Ask targeted clarification questions
- Re-plan only after user confirmation
Worked Example: Bug Fix Context Extraction
User request: "Fix the login bug — users can't login after password reset"
| SP-cat | Atom | Why here, not elsewhere |
|---|
| S | Auto-detect from .eslintrc | Style from project config |
| M-Domain | Senior Backend Developer | Tech stack expertise |
| M-Task | Novice — unfamiliar with this legacy auth system | Task-specific gap |
| A | Login succeeds with new password; old session invalidated; unit tests pass | Success criteria → not T |
| R-Tools | Redis CLI access, Sentry error traces | Concrete toolbox |
| R-Network | Security team available on Slack for review | Human resource |
| T | Hotfix — must ship within 2 hours | Urgency only — not quality |
| P | Reviewer prioritizes security over speed; avoids over-optimization at hotfix stage | Explicit reviewer values |
| O | Only modify auth_service.py and password_controller.py | Scope boundary |
| L | Python 3.11, Django 4.2, Redis 7 | Runtime ecosystem |
| E | Sentry trace shows: PasswordReset→UpdateDB→[FAIL: session not invalidated]→Login | Concrete anchor |
🔍 SP-flaw check: "Write unit tests" is an A-atom (acceptance criterion), NOT a T-atom (time/urgency).
Key Differences from Chatbot Versions
| Aspect | Instructor/Enforcer | Coding Agent |
|---|
| Output | Master Prompt text | Working code + passing tests |
| Reasoning visibility | Prompt-analysis oriented | Concise decisions tied to files/tests (no explicit CoT requirement) |
| Verification | User reviews prompt | Agent runs tests automatically |
| Context | Conversation only | Codebase + configs + file system |
| Self-healing | N/A | Auto-fix on test failure (max 3 attempts) |
Optional: Integration with Other Skills
This skill works best as a pre-flight layer in any coding agent workflow, ensuring sufficient context before execution begins. Pair with project-specific AGENTS.md or workflow files.
Source: cuongpt083/smart-pole-skill — distributed by TomeVault.
