본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

incremental-implementation

Deliver multi-file changes in thin vertical slices — implement, test, verify, commit, repeat. Load when implementing a feature from a plan, building across more than one file, refactoring, or when tempted to land a large change in one pass. Also triggers on "incremental implementation", "vertical slice", "thin slice", "one slice at a time", "don't do it all at once". Routes single-file fixes to direct execution. Pairs with test-driven-development and git-workflow-and-versioning.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md5.1 KB
  • references/examples.md2.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Incremental Implementation

You ship multi-file work as a sequence of small, working slices. Each slice leaves the repo buildable and tests green.

Hard Rules

Never write more than ~100 lines without running the project's test command. Never mix unrelated concerns in one slice (feature + refactor + deps = separate slices). Never expand scope beyond the current task — note adjacent issues; do not fix them. Never skip verify because "you'll test at the end." After each slice: test → verify → commit (see git-workflow-and-versioning).


Workflow

Step 1 — Confirm slice plan

Read the approved plan or task. Pick one slice: the smallest end-to-end path (vertical slice preferred). State what's in scope and explicitly out of scope for this slice.

Step 2 — Implement one slice

Build only that slice. Prefer the simplest thing that could work — no abstractions before the third real use case.

Step 3 — Test and verify

Run the project's test command. Run build/typecheck/lint if the change could affect them. Do not re-run the same command on unchanged code.

Step 4 — Commit and pick next slice

Commit with a descriptive message (git-workflow-and-versioning). If the slice came from a saved plan, tick its checkbox in the plan file before moving on — the plan is the durable progress record across sessions. Repeat Steps 2–4 until the task is done.

Step 5 — End-to-end check

Identify the exact verify command (test/build/lint), run it fresh, and read its actual output — never report "done" or "tests pass" from memory or assumption. Full test suite, build clean, feature matches spec/plan. Report slices completed and commits made.


Slicing strategies

StrategyWhen
Vertical slice (default)One complete path through stack (e.g. create → API → UI)
Contract-firstParallel FE/BE — define API contract first, then implement each side
Risk-firstProve the riskiest integration before surrounding code

Gotchas

  • A bug in slice 1 invalidates slices 2–5 — test each slice.
  • "While I'm here" refactors belong in a separate commit, not this slice.
  • Feature flags beat long-lived branches for incomplete user-visible work.
  • Agents that skip verify to save time usually cost more time in debugging.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"I'll test everything at the end"Failures compound; you won't know which slice broke.
"Faster to do it all at once"Until one of 500 lines is wrong and you can't bisect.
"Too small to commit"Small commits are free; giant commits are expensive to revert.
"I'll add the feature flag later"Incomplete features must not be user-visible without a flag.
"Let me run tests again for reassurance"Re-run only after code changed since last green run.
"It should pass now"Claims of done require a fresh command run and read output — not a prediction.

Output Format

## Incremental implementation — [task/slug]

Slices planned: N | Completed: N
Current slice: [name] — [in scope / out of scope]

Verification:
- Tests: [command] → [pass/fail]
- Build: [command] → [pass/fail/skip]

Commits: [list or "pending user commit policy"]

Next slice: [one line] | Done

Examples

<examples> <example> <input>Implement task creation from the plan — DB, API, and UI.</input> <output> Slice 1 only: POST /tasks + migration + minimal form. Out of scope: list/edit/delete. After `npm test` passes → commit `feat: add task creation endpoint and form`. Next slice: list tasks. </output> </example> </examples>

Verification

  • Slice scope stated before coding
  • Tests run for slice
  • Commit advised after verification
  • Traceability to plan tasks

Red Flags

  • Slice shipped without tests while later slices depend on it
  • While-I-am-here refactor bundled into feature slice
  • Long-lived branch used instead of flag for partial UX
  • Slice boundary unclear — spans unrelated subsystems

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-09

  • Added evidence-before-claims verify gate + plan-checkbox ticking (agent-loom Phase 4, obra/superpowers)

Impact Report

Task: [slug] | Slices: N/M | Last verify: [pass/fail]
Commits: [count] | Scope expansions noted: [count]

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

dvy1987의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고