Build a new feature using the elephant/goldfish workflow. Use the user's text around the $eg-new-feature skill mention as the feature description. If no description is provided, ask for one.

If the feature description is a GitHub issue URL or #<number>, fetch it with gh issue view <number> --json title,body,labels,comments and seed the design doc from it.

Before designing, check AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md for project-specific eg-* skills or workflow routing notes. If the request clearly belongs to a more specific local workflow, tell the user and switch only if they agree.

Scope

Restate the request in one or two sentences and ask the user to confirm if the request is ambiguous or high-impact. For a sharp request, proceed after the restatement.

Do a surface-area sanity check based on the current repo: UI, API, database/schema, background job, external integration, generated code, mobile/platform-specific work, or backend-only logic. Stop for confirmation when the request appears high-impact, destructive, cross-tenant/auth-sensitive, or out of phase with documented project priorities.

Design Doc

Print a design doc before coding. For substantial features, infer a project-appropriate docs path from AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md or docs/, then ask before saving it.

DESIGN DOC
- Why: <user problem this solves>
- Scope: <in scope and explicitly out>
- Surfaces touched: <files, routes, models, components, jobs, external services>
- Interfaces: <props, signatures, API shapes, DB columns, event payloads>
- UX flow: <click-by-click for UI or request-by-request for backend>
- Project-specific constraints: <auth/scoping, lifecycle, generated code, platform, performance, or other constraints discovered from the repo>
- Failure modes: <what breaks and what the user/API sees>
- Verification criteria: <unit tests, integration/E2E, manual Browser Use/simulator steps>
- Out-of-scope follow-ups: <noted, not built>

For UI work, sketch the structure in plain text or pseudo-JSX. If a visual reference is needed, ask for the existing component or screen to mirror.

No-Code Gate

Do NOT edit, write, scaffold, or refactor code until BOTH Pass B (Critic) AND Pass C (Readiness) in the next section close with their ready tokens (design ready + implementation ready). Article rule, paraphrased: "I do not want you to create code. We are not going to create code. Resist your impulse." This holds until the design doc passes both gates — even if the user asks to skip ahead, even if the change "looks trivial", even if it is "just one line".

If the user explicitly asks to skip the gate ("just write the code", "skip the design doc", etc.), restate the gate, name the still-open passes, and require an explicit override ("yes, override the no-code gate") before any file write. The exception is the $eg-fix-bug skill for trivial fixes covered by its own triviality gate.

The design doc itself, test names mentioned in chat (not yet on disk), and read-only exploration (file reads, git status / git log / git diff, route/schema inspection) are NOT code edits and are permitted.

Three-Goldfish Design Check

The user invoked this skill, so fresh design-check subagents are explicitly authorized.

Run the article's full design-stage protocol: three sequential passes per round (or two on revisions — see below), each with no prior context. The combined gate is "ready iff critic AND readiness both sign off"; comprehension is informational.

For each pass, spawn a fresh Codex subagent with fork_context: false and agent_type: "default". If spawn_agent is unavailable, run each pass locally as a separate cold prompt and keep implementation context out of the prompt. Each pass gets ONLY the design doc — no chat history, no implementation intent, no other passes' output.

Round 1 runs all three passes; round 2+ skips comprehension (revisions are gap-driven, not structural — once the doc reads cleanly, it almost always still reads cleanly). On every round, run critic and readiness.

Pass A — Comprehension (round 1 only)

Verifies the doc reads cleanly to a cold reader. Send only:

You are a fresh reader with no prior context. Below is a design doc for a feature in this repo. Do NOT critique it yet. Your job is to verify the doc reads clearly to someone who walks in cold.

Output two short sections in this order:

## What this feature does
2-5 sentences in your own words. The user-visible change. Who triggers it, when, what they get back.

## How the existing system works (per the doc)
2-5 sentences summarizing the current behavior the doc describes touching. Surfaces, controllers, components, message flow — whatever the doc references.

End with EXACTLY one of these closing lines, on its own line:
- comprehension passed       (the doc reads cleanly; no ambiguous sections)
- comprehension unclear      (one or more sections are too vague to paraphrase)

If unclear, list the ambiguous sections by heading before the closing line. Do NOT critique architecture choices here — only flag things you genuinely cannot understand.

DESIGN DOC:
<PASTE FULL DESIGN DOC>

Pass B — Critic (every round)

Finds gaps that block implementation. Send only:

You are a fresh reviewer with no prior context. Below is a design doc for a feature in this repo. AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md may contain project rules.

Read the design doc and the surfaces it claims to touch. Find holes before implementation starts:
- Is the scope crisp?
- Are interfaces concrete enough that two implementers would converge?
- Do verification criteria actually verify the feature?
- Does the doc misunderstand existing code?
- Are failure modes missing?
- Project-specific constraints: auth/scoping, migrations/backfills, generated code, platform lifecycle, browser/device validation, performance budgets, or other repo-specific risks visible in AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md and the touched surfaces.
- Are there project-specific gotchas the doc ignores?

For UI work, use Browser Use / in-app browser or a simulator only if the project has a runnable surface and the check would clarify existing behavior.

DESIGN DOC:
<PASTE FULL DESIGN DOC>

Output numbered gaps with file:line citations where applicable. End with `design ready` only if there are zero gaps. Otherwise end with `design needs revision`.

Pass C — Readiness (every round)

Stricter than the critic: not "is the design good?" but "is the design executable in one pass?" Send only:

You are a fresh implementer with no prior context. Below is a design doc for a feature in this repo. Imagine you've been told: "Implement this. First pass. No follow-up questions allowed." Could you?

For every interface, file path, function signature, API shape, DB column, queue argument, component prop, message type, and verification criterion the doc claims, ask:
- Could I write the corresponding code without asking the author anything?
- Could I verify it works without asking what "works" means?
- Are the cited files and line numbers concrete enough that I'd open the right file and edit the right region?

Output a numbered list of EVERY question you would have to ask the author before you could ship. For each:
- The question itself, one sentence.
- The section of the doc that should have answered it but didn't.

If the list is empty, say "No open questions."

End with EXACTLY one of these closing lines, on its own line:
- implementation ready       (zero open questions; first-pass implementable)
- implementation not ready   (one or more open questions remain)

A design can be beautiful and still fail this gate. The critic asks "is the design good?"; you ask "is the design executable?".

DESIGN DOC:
<PASTE FULL DESIGN DOC>

Triage and Loop

A round is ready iff Pass B closes with design ready AND Pass C closes with implementation ready. Comprehension is informational: log it, surface it to the user, but do not gate progress on it. If comprehension returns comprehension unclear AND the round is otherwise ready, still proceed — but flag in the final report that the doc was unclear in places.

If a round is not ready, bundle the critic gaps and readiness open questions (and comprehension feedback if it returned unclear) into a single revise prompt with section labels (=== CRITIC GAPS ===, === READINESS OPEN QUESTIONS ===, === COMPREHENSION FEEDBACK ===). The elephant must address EVERY numbered gap across BOTH the CRITIC GAPS and READINESS OPEN QUESTIONS sections — do not collapse or skip because the numbering restarts. Each gap is either addressed in a revised doc, or rebutted with a verbatim reason citing AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, a PRD/source-of-truth doc, or the user's words.

Then re-run Pass B and Pass C against the revised doc (skip Pass A — see above). If the round still does not converge after three revisions, stop and ask the user for more direction.

Implementation

Pre-flight check before any code edit: confirm the previous section closed both Pass B (Critic) AND Pass C (Readiness). If either is still open, the No-Code Gate from the Design Doc section still applies — return to the design check instead of proceeding.

Once the design is design ready, write a short ordered implementation plan.

Derive layer ordering from the stack and repo conventions. Typical order: data/schema first, domain/model logic, service/API boundaries, UI/components, navigation/routing, generated code, then tests and manual validation. Keep the plan short for trivial changes.

Implement in that order. After each layer, run a focused verification before moving on.

After each layer, run the narrowest useful verification: focused unit tests, typecheck/analyze, route/API smoke checks, generated-code validation, browser/simulator walkthroughs, or logs.

For UI changes, drive the feature in the browser or simulator before reporting it done. For backend-only changes, use focused tests, curl/API checks, logs, or equivalent runtime verification.

Review

Use $eg-precommit-review <feature name> or apply the same review procedure from the eg-precommit-review skill.

Test Gate

Run:

<derive from AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, package manifests, and CI config>

All required tiers must pass. For UI features, do a final Browser Use / in-app browser or simulator walkthrough of the golden path and one plausible edge case.

Final Report

Report:

Feature summary
Files touched by layer
Tests added
Design-check result and gap resolutions
Review outcome, including verbatim rebuttals
Test gate status
Manual walkthrough summary
Out-of-scope follow-ups

Stop short of staging or committing. Follow the commit policy documented in AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md if the user later asks to commit.