Workflow feature
Use for new projects, features, or major refactoring. Phases: Planning (Req→UX→Test Spec→Dev Plan) → Implementation → QA → Lessons Learned. Auto-retry on failure, unattended.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add lklimek/claudius --skill workflow-featureAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
11.4 KB, ~2.5k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Feature Workflow
Use for new projects, new/fundamentally modified features, major refactoring.
Four phases, MANDATORY and SEQUENTIAL. Never skip, merge, reorder, or run phases in parallel. Within a phase, tasks and sub-phases MAY be combined or parallelized as appropriate.
Before You Start
Search project and global memories for relevant context before planning or dispatching agents:
search_memories(query="<topic>", project="<repo>")— discover what past sessions learned about this areaget_memories(memory_id="<id>")— read full details of relevant memories found in step 1
These are MCP tools on the MemCan server. Use them if available. Skip silently if not.
Unattended Operation
This workflow runs without user interaction unless a decision is required. Do NOT pause for confirmation between phases. Accumulate reports and present a single Final Report when all phases complete or the workflow cannot proceed.
Phase 1: Planning
Four sequential sub-phases. Each produces an artifact consumed by the next. Sub-phases may be combined into fewer agent invocations when scope is small, but the concerns must still be addressed in order.
1a. Requirements → ux-designer-diziet
Personas, domain knowledge, functional/non-functional requirements, user stories, data needs & processing rules. Validate requirements against each persona.
Artifact: Requirements document — structured list with acceptance criteria.
1b. UX Design → ux-designer-diziet
User journeys, interaction patterns, UI mocks/wireframes, accessibility, DX planning. Derived from Requirements artifact.
Artifact: UX specification — journeys, mocks, interaction patterns.
1c. Test Case Specification → qa-engineer-marvin
Write test case SPECIFICATIONS (not code) derived from Requirements + UX artifacts. Each test case: ID, description, preconditions, steps, expected outcome, requirement traceability. These define the acceptance criteria that QA validates against.
Artifact: Test case specification document.
1d. Development Plan → architect-nagatha
System layers and responsibilities, tool/tech selection, prefer reuse, guide code placement, deployment model. Decompose work into implementation tasks. Each task references which test cases it satisfies.
Batch small tasks so each agent gets ≥100 lines of work — respect specialization boundaries (don't merge frontend with backend, security with docs, or unrelated domains).
Artifact: Development plan with task breakdown.
Phase 2: Implementation → developer-bilby
Brief each task by goal and acceptance criteria, not files or approach — Bilby investigates the codebase and designs the HOW itself (see grand-admiral § Development-Work Delegation). For each task:
- Investigate, draft an implementation plan (files, approach, sequence), get coordinator sign-off before writing code
- Write unit/integration tests from the Test Case Specification — tests MUST fail initially
- Implement until tests pass
- Self-review: deduplication, code quality, formatting, linting
- Commit
Pre-empt the QA audits before declaring impl done:
- Self-check comment rules — every comment block written or modified must satisfy
coding-best-practicesCross-Cutting Rules: length cap (≤2 preferred, 3 mediocre), present-state only, two-tier audience (strict for internal commentary, liberal for public-API doc comments). - Self-check duplication — for every helper, parser, signer, fetch loop, atomic-write, etc. introduced, briefly grep the workspace, direct dependencies (per the project's manifest —
Cargo.toml,package.json,pyproject.toml,go.mod, etc.), and any project-defined reference repos for an existing equivalent before rolling a new one. If found and publicly exported, use it. If crate-private (or language equivalent), propose promoting it. If only partially overlaps, document the rationale for the new copy. - Report rejected equivalents — list any candidate equivalent considered and rejected, with one-line rationale, in the implementation summary so QA has context.
Multiple Bilby agents may run in parallel on independent tasks. Use teams for shared-file tasks.
TDD Discipline
Tests are written FIRST within each task, before implementation code.
- Tests derive from the Test Case Specification (Phase 1c), not from implementation.
- Tests must fail before implementation begins. A test that passes without new code is either wrong or testing the wrong thing.
- Failures are verified against the spec. If a test matches the Test Case Specification, the code is wrong — fix the code, not the test. Only adjust a test when the specification itself changed.
Phase 3: QA
Separate agent per concern — run in parallel:
| Agent | Focus |
|---|---|
qa-engineer-marvin | Tests — execute test cases from spec, verify all pass, coverage gaps. This is Marvin's full and only remit here now — docs-review and dedup-audit have moved to project-reviewer-adams below. |
security-engineer-smythe | Security audit, dependency security |
ux-designer-diziet | UX/DX audit against UX specification |
technical-writer-trillian | End-user, developer, deployment docs |
project-reviewer-adams | Validate Development Plan fully executed, code quality — plus two absorbed read-only passes:<br>• Docs review — apply coding-best-practices Cross-Cutting Rules (length cap + present-state + two-tier audience) to comments and API doc comments (rustdoc, JSDoc, docstrings, godoc, etc.) introduced by the PR diff. Findings with file:line citations and proposed rewrites at /tmp/claudius-<scope>-docs-report.md.<br>• Dedup audit — for every new publicly exported function, type, trait/interface, and module introduced by the PR, search the workspace, direct dependencies (per the project's manifest — Cargo.toml, package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod, etc.), and project-defined reference repos for equivalent functionality. Findings (high-confidence duplicates, partial overlaps, reviewed-and-rejected) with file:line citations both sides at /tmp/claudius-<scope>-dedup-report.md. |
Only qa-engineer-marvin executes the build/test/lint suite. security-engineer-smythe, ux-designer-diziet, technical-writer-trillian, and project-reviewer-adams review via diff/read/grep and MUST NOT independently re-run build, test, or lint commands unless investigating a specific Marvin-reported failure — redundant compiles waste wall-clock and tokens and risk lock contention on a shared target dir. Word each spawn prompt accordingly; do not leave build ownership implicit.
Both audits are READ-ONLY by mandate — emphasize this in the agent prompt template. Findings go to the lead, who decides follow-up:
- Trivial fixes can land in the same PR via a separate commit
- Substantial refactors land as follow-up PRs
- Findings the lead judges as wrong-call go in a "rejected with rationale" section of the report
To skip any audit, the lead must document the reason in the QA report.
QA validates TWO things:
- Test Case Specification coverage — every test case from Phase 1c passes or has a justified exception
- Development Plan completion — every task from Phase 1d was implemented
No task is done until QA passes. Formatting, linting, and test passing are not optional. Fixes must deliver the intended end-user and developer experience, not just pass tests.
Phase 4: Lessons Learned
After QA passes, use claudius:lessons-learned skill to save:
- Bugs found and root causes
- Architecture/design decisions with rationale
- Patterns, anti-patterns, workarounds discovered
- Surprising behavior or non-obvious gotchas
Default to global memories unless strictly project-specific. Skip if nothing noteworthy. Report count of memories saved.
Failure & Auto-Retry
When a phase produces MEDIUM+ findings, test failures, or incomplete coverage:
- Prepare a failure report: what failed, why, which findings, severity
- Auto-return to the previous phase — do NOT wait for user acceptance
- Previous phase receives the failure report and addresses the issues
- Re-execute the failed phase with updated artifacts
- Exception: if the failure requires a USER DECISION (ambiguous requirements, conflicting constraints, scope change), pause and present options. Otherwise, proceed autonomously.
Retry Map
| Failed Phase | Returns To | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| QA (Phase 3) | Implementation (Phase 2) | Fix code/tests to match spec |
| Implementation (Phase 2) | Dev Plan (Phase 1d) | Plan incomplete or infeasible |
| Dev Plan (Phase 1d) | Test Case Spec (Phase 1c) | Test cases missing or contradictory |
| Test Case Spec (Phase 1c) | UX Design (Phase 1b) | UX spec incomplete or ambiguous |
| UX Design (Phase 1b) | Requirements (Phase 1a) | Requirements incomplete or conflicting |
Max 3 retries per phase. After 3, escalate to the user with a full report of all attempts and unresolved issues.
Final Report
Presented ONLY when all phases complete (or max retries exhausted):
- Per-phase summary: what was done, artifacts produced, iterations needed
- Findings resolved: count by severity, auto-fixed vs deferred
- Retry log: which phases retried, why, how resolved
- Outstanding issues: anything needing user attention
- Memories saved: count from Lessons Learned
Model Selection
Agents default to model: inherit; set model per spawn (see claudius:delegate § Token Economy). Feature work leans opus for complex design and decisions; use sonnet for routine sub-tasks (straightforward implementation, config, docs, technical-writer-trillian).
Severity & Iteration
Severity levels (via claudius:severity skill): CRITICAL > HIGH > MEDIUM > LOW > INFO.
Iterate until no issues above LOW remain.
Severity inflation guard: if a finding reappears across iterations (same meaning, possibly different agent/ID/wording), its severity must not increase. Downgrade to the previous iteration's level.
Code Deduplication
Include a deduplication pass — scan for duplicated logic, extract shared helpers, eliminate copy-paste. Do this during Implementation self-review and QA code quality checks.
Multi-Agent Coordination
For phases with multiple agents on shared files, coordinate via named spawns + SendMessage claim/completion broadcasts to prevent duplicate work and conflicts. See grand-admiral § Spawning and ci-dance § Inter-Stream Communication for the pattern.
Commit Discipline
Agents must commit all changes before exiting — uncommitted work cannot be merged.
ALL code-mutating spawned agents MUST work in an isolated git worktree — no exceptions. The isolation flag is unreliable (silently dropped); the coordinator pre-creates the worktree (see Pre-flight below).
Pre-flight pattern: see grand-admiral skill — Worktree Isolation. Default is Option A (local-SHA injection, no push); Option B (push first) is the explicit fallback.
Post-wave: verify worktree commits, merge into the feature branch, run tests, then clean up worktrees. Push only when the user explicitly authorizes it (e.g., via /push, /ci-dance, or direct instruction) — never push as an automatic step.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.