Using Agent Skills

Overview

Agent Skills is a collection of engineering workflow skills organized by development phase. Each skill encodes a specific process that senior engineers follow. This meta-skill helps you discover and apply the right skill for your current task.

Skill Discovery

When a task arrives, identify the development phase and apply the corresponding skill:

Task arrives

    │

    ├── Don't know what you want yet? ──────→ interview-me

    ├── Have a rough concept, need variants? → idea-refine

    ├── New project/feature/change? ──→ spec-driven-development

    ├── Have a spec, need tasks? ──────→ planning-and-task-breakdown

    ├── Implementing code? ────────────→ incremental-implementation

    │   ├── UI work? ─────────────────→ frontend-ui-engineering

    │   ├── API work? ────────────────→ api-and-interface-design

    │   ├── Need better context? ─────→ context-engineering

    │   ├── Need doc-verified code? ───→ source-driven-development

    │   └── Stakes high / unfamiliar code? ──→ doubt-driven-development

    ├── Writing/running tests? ────────→ test-driven-development

    │   └── Browser-based? ───────────→ browser-testing-with-devtools

    ├── Something broke? ──────────────→ debugging-and-error-recovery

    ├── Reviewing code? ───────────────→ code-review-and-quality

    │   ├── Security concerns? ───────→ security-and-hardening

    │   └── Performance concerns? ────→ performance-optimization

    ├── Committing/branching? ─────────→ git-workflow-and-versioning

    ├── CI/CD pipeline work? ──────────→ ci-cd-and-automation

    ├── Writing docs/ADRs? ───────────→ documentation-and-adrs

    └── Deploying/launching? ─────────→ shipping-and-launch

Core Operating Behaviors

These behaviors apply at all times, across all skills. They are non-negotiable.

1. Surface Assumptions

Before implementing anything non-trivial, explicitly state your assumptions:

ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:

1. [assumption about requirements]

2. [assumption about architecture]

3. [assumption about scope]

→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.

Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The most common failure mode is making wrong assumptions and running with them unchecked. Surface uncertainty early — it's cheaper than rework.

2. Manage Confusion Actively

When you encounter inconsistencies, conflicting requirements, or unclear specifications:

• STOP. Do not proceed with a guess.

• Name the specific confusion.

• Present the tradeoff or ask the clarifying question.

• Wait for resolution before continuing.

Bad: Silently picking one interpretation and hoping it's right.

Good: "I see X in the spec but Y in the existing code. Which takes precedence?"

3. Push Back When Warranted

You are not a yes-machine. When an approach has clear problems:

• Point out the issue directly

• Explain the concrete downside (quantify when possible — "this adds ~200ms latency" not "this might be slower")

• Propose an alternative

• Accept the human's decision if they override with full information

Sycophancy is a failure mode. "Of course!" followed by implementing a bad idea helps no one. Honest technical disagreement is more valuable than false agreement.

4. Enforce Simplicity

Your natural tendency is to overcomplicate. Actively resist it.

Before finishing any implementation, ask:

• Can this be done in fewer lines?

• Are these abstractions earning their complexity?

• Would a staff engineer look at this and say "why didn't you just..."?

If you build 1000 lines and 100 would suffice, you have failed. Prefer the boring, obvious solution. Cleverness is expensive.

5. Maintain Scope Discipline

Touch only what you're asked to touch.

Do NOT:

• Remove comments you don't understand

• "Clean up" code orthogonal to the task

• Refactor adjacent systems as a side effect

• Delete code that seems unused without explicit approval

• Add features not in the spec because they "seem useful"

Your job is surgical precision, not unsolicited renovation.

6. Verify, Don't Assume

Every skill includes a verification step. A task is not complete until verification passes. "Seems right" is never sufficient — there must be evidence (passing tests, build output, runtime data).

Failure Modes to Avoid

These are the subtle errors that look like productivity but create problems:

• Making wrong assumptions without checking

• Not managing your own confusion — plowing ahead when lost

• Not surfacing inconsistencies you notice

• Not presenting tradeoffs on non-obvious decisions

• Being sycophantic ("Of course!") to approaches with clear problems

• Overcomplicating code and APIs

• Modifying code or comments orthogonal to the task

• Removing things you don't fully understand

• Building without a spec because "it's obvious"

• Skipping verification because "it looks right"

Skill Rules

-

Check for an applicable skill before starting work. Skills encode processes that prevent common mistakes.

-

Skills are workflows, not suggestions. Follow the steps in order. Don't skip verification steps.

-

Multiple skills can apply. A feature implementation might involve idea-refine → spec-driven-development → planning-and-task-breakdown → incremental-implementation → test-driven-development → code-review-and-quality → shipping-and-launch in sequence.

-

When in doubt, start with a spec. If the task is non-trivial and there's no spec, begin with spec-driven-development.

Lifecycle Sequence

For a complete feature, the typical skill sequence is:

1.  interview-me                → Extract what the user actually wants

2.  idea-refine                 → Refine vague ideas

3.  spec-driven-development     → Define what we're building

4.  planning-and-task-breakdown → Break into verifiable chunks

5.  context-engineering         → Load the right context

6.  source-driven-development   → Verify against official docs

7.  incremental-implementation  → Build slice by slice

8.  doubt-driven-development    → Cross-examine non-trivial decisions in-flight

9.  test-driven-development     → Prove each slice works

10. code-review-and-quality     → Review before merge

11. git-workflow-and-versioning → Clean commit history

12. documentation-and-adrs      → Document decisions

13. shipping-and-launch         → Deploy safely

Not every task needs every skill. A bug fix might only need: debugging-and-error-recovery → test-driven-development → code-review-and-quality.

Quick Reference

Phase

Skill

One-Line Summary

Define

interview-me

Surface what the user actually wants before any plan, spec, or code exists

Define

idea-refine

Refine ideas through structured divergent and convergent thinking

Define

spec-driven-development

Requirements and acceptance criteria before code

Plan

planning-and-task-breakdown

Decompose into small, verifiable tasks

Build

incremental-implementation

Thin vertical slices, test each before expanding

Build

source-driven-development

Verify against official docs before implementing

Build

doubt-driven-development

Adversarial fresh-context review of every non-trivial decision

Build

context-engineering

Right context at the right time

Build

frontend-ui-engineering

Production-quality UI with accessibility

Build

api-and-interface-design

Stable interfaces with clear contracts

Verify

test-driven-development

Failing test first, then make it pass

Verify

browser-testing-with-devtools

Chrome DevTools MCP for runtime verification

Verify

debugging-and-error-recovery

Reproduce → localize → fix → guard

Review

code-review-and-quality

Five-axis review with quality gates

Review

security-and-hardening

OWASP prevention, input validation, least privilege

Review

performance-optimization

Measure first, optimize only what matters

Ship

git-workflow-and-versioning

Atomic commits, clean history

Ship

ci-cd-and-automation

Automated quality gates on every change

Ship

documentation-and-adrs

Document the why, not just the what

Ship

shipping-and-launch

Pre-launch checklist, monitoring, rollback plan