一键导入
implement
Use when starting implementation work from a PRD, spec, or set of issues — to follow a structured TDD → validate → review → commit loop.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Use when starting implementation work from a PRD, spec, or set of issues — to follow a structured TDD → validate → review → commit loop.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when research or domain knowledge keeps getting rediscovered across sessions — build a supplementary markdown wiki that compounds synthesized knowledge without replacing GitHub or committed project guidance
Use when you need to build a new MCP server — plan the tool surface, implement the server, register it in Copilot CLI, inspect the config, and test the tools end to end.
Use when delegated work needs runtime guardrails — constrain sub-agents with loop detection, circuit breakers, and escalating sandbox levels before accepting their output
Use when reviewing the source code of an MCP server or client implementation — not just its runtime config — for authentication, session, rate-limit, schema-validation, and SDK-usage vulnerabilities, with file/line-cited findings mapped to OWASP Top 10
Use when you need to evaluate an LLM pipeline or AI feature systematically — sets up an eval harness with test cases, scoring rubrics, and pass/fail tracking rather than one-off manual spot-checks
Use when a question requires comprehensive evidence gathering from multiple sources, systematic synthesis, and traceable citations — produces a structured research brief rather than a quick answer
| name | implement |
| description | Use when starting implementation work from a PRD, spec, or set of issues — to follow a structured TDD → validate → review → commit loop. |
| metadata | {"category":"development","agent_type":"general-purpose","origin":"mattpocock/skills"} |
| keep-coding-instructions | true |
A structured five-step loop for turning a specification (PRD, issue, or design doc) into
committed, reviewed code. Complements tdd-workflow (which focuses
on the Red→Green→Refactor micro-cycle) and
verification-before-completion
(which enforces proof before claiming done). This skill governs the macro flow: from
spec to commit.
/review and type-checking as gates before every commit| Instead of implement | Use |
|---|---|
| Red→Green micro-cycle for a single function | tdd-workflow |
| Verifying a claim before saying "done" | verification-before-completion |
| Full sprint across multiple features | sprint-workflow |
npm test, pytest, cargo test, etc.)tsc --noEmit, mypy, etc.)Before touching implementation, write the test that will prove the spec is met.
> Write a failing test for [behavior from PRD]. Keep it to the thinnest observable behavior.
Run it and confirm it fails:
# JavaScript / TypeScript
npm test -- --testPathPattern="<target>"
# Python
pytest tests/test_<target>.py
# Rust
cargo test <test_name>
If no test framework exists yet, create the simplest one before writing any source code.
Write the minimum code to turn the failing test green. Do not add features beyond the test.
[Autopilot Mode]
> Implement the minimum code to pass the test in step 1.
Re-run the test and confirm it passes. If it doesn't, iterate before moving to Step 3.
After tests pass, run the type checker to surface inference gaps and implicit any / unknown
types before they become runtime bugs.
# TypeScript
npx tsc --noEmit
# Python (mypy)
mypy src/
# Rust (already type-checked by cargo build)
cargo build 2>&1 | grep -E '^error'
Fix all type errors before continuing. A type error in Step 3 often reveals a missing edge case that warrants a new test in Step 1.
Run the entire test suite, not just the targeted test, to confirm no existing behaviour was broken.
# Full suite — adapt to your stack
npm test
pytest
cargo test
Address every failing test. If unrelated tests break, understand why before committing — do not suppress them.
Invoke /review (or the equivalent code-review agent) before committing. Only commit after
review concerns are resolved.
/review
Once review passes:
git add -A
git commit -m "feat(<scope>): <what the PRD required>"
Use conventional commit format. Reference the issue or PRD in the commit body if the change is non-trivial.
# PRD: "Users can reset their password via email"
# Step 1 — TDD
> Write a failing test: POST /auth/reset-password with valid email returns 202 and
queues a reset email. Confirm the test fails.
# Step 2 — Implement
[Autopilot Mode]
> Implement the password reset endpoint to pass the test.
# Step 3 — Type-check
npx tsc --noEmit
# Step 4 — Full suite
npm test
# Step 5 — Review → Commit
/review
git commit -m "feat(auth): add password reset via email"
After committing, check the PRD for remaining uncovered behaviors and restart at Step 1 for the next slice. Prefer many small commits over one large commit per feature.
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Type errors can be fixed later" | Type errors in step 3 often reveal spec gaps that should produce new failing tests. |
| "Skip /review — I wrote clean code" | /review finds issues invisible to the author. It takes seconds. |
| "Run only the targeted test" | Regressions in unrelated tests are real bugs that must be caught before commit. |
| "Write tests after implementation" | Tests written after the fact rarely start in a Red state and miss edge cases. |
@ts-ignore, # type: ignore, or unsafe/review skipped because "it's a small change"/review run and all blockers addressedtdd-workflow — Red→Green→Refactor micro-cycleverification-before-completion — proving a task is donesprint-workflow — full Think→Plan→Build→Review→Test→Ship→Monitor cyclepr-multi-perspective-review — deeper review before opening a PR