Task
My personal development harness for Claude Code and Codex. Use at your own risk.
npx -y skills add RubenGlez/harness --skill taskAssembled 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.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Make a small change to a shipped product — a bug fix, behavior tweak, or micro-feature — as one verified slice, syncing the affected feature spec on the way out. Use for day-to-day requests like "fix X", "change Y to do Z", or a single small feature that doesn't warrant a full phase of the workflow.
SKILL.md
3.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Task
One small change, done end-to-end: classify, fix, verify, sync the docs. No interview, no phase ceremony. The point is that .harness/ stays truthful as a side effect of doing the work.
Step 1: Classify and scope
Restate the request in one sentence. Then classify:
- Bug — the product violates its own spec. The spec is right; the code is wrong.
- Behavior change — the spec said one thing, the user now wants another.
- Micro-feature — new behavior, small enough that a spec interview would be ceremony.
Find what's affected: grep .harness/engineering/features/ for the feature(s) this touches, and read the relevant spec plus AGENTS.md and .harness/product/CONTEXT.md if they exist.
Escalate instead of proceeding if any of these turn out true — recommend the right skill and stop:
- It's a meaningful new feature or behavior change that warrants a product conversation →
/evolve - It needs an architectural decision not covered by
architecture.mdor ADRs →/evolvethen/dev-plan - It spans several features or layers in non-trivial ways →
/implementwith proper specs - It has security, auth, data-migration, or external-contract implications → surface the question to the user first
Step 2: Fix as one vertical slice
Implement only this change, entry point through to storage:
- Match existing conventions and use the domain vocabulary from
CONTEXT.md - No refactors, no shared infrastructure, no adjacent improvements
- If the change contradicts an acceptance criterion, that's expected for a behavior change — Step 4 fixes the spec, not the other way around
Step 3: Verify
Batch size is one, so verify directly (the /implement-vs-/qa split doesn't apply here):
- Run static checks (typecheck, build, lint)
- Run the narrowest test that covers the change; for a bug, write the failing test first if the suite makes that cheap
- Exercise the change where it runs if a runtime is available (browser, simulator, CLI)
Not verified → not done. Don't hand unverified changes back.
Step 4: Sync the docs
- Bug: spec was already right — no spec change. Note the fix only if the spec's implementation note is now misleading.
- Behavior change: patch the acceptance criterion in the affected spec to describe the new behavior (keep the Given/When/Then phrasing), with a dated one-line note ("Changed 2026-06-10: due date now resets on duplication").
- Micro-feature: add a minimal spec file to
.harness/engineering/features/— statusdone, the acceptance criteria you just verified phrased Given/When/Then, one-line implementation note. This keeps future/qaruns covering it. - Touch
.harness/product/roadmap.mdonly if the change alters something the roadmap states. - If a README or other public doc describes the old behavior, update it.
- Commit the spec sync with (or right after) the code change — worktrees and future sessions only see committed
.harness/content.
Step 5: Report and recommend
Report: what changed (files), how it was verified, which docs were synced.
- User-visible change on a released product → "Run /ship for a patch release."
- Internal-only → done, nothing else needed.
- Found related problems along the way → list them; don't fix them in this task.