复制安装命令
用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。
复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。
Production-grade engineering skills for AI coding agents.
用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。
复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。
来源文件:README.md
Production-grade engineering skills for AI coding agents.
Skills encode the workflows, quality gates, and best practices that senior engineers use when building software. These ones are packaged so AI agents follow them consistently across every phase of development.

DEFINE PLAN BUILD VERIFY REVIEW SHIP
┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐
│ Idea │ ───▶ │ Spec │ ───▶ │ Code │ ───▶ │ Test │ ───▶ │ QA │ ───▶ │ Go │
│Refine│ │ PRD │ │ Impl │ │Debug │ │ Gate │ │ Live │
└──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘
/spec /plan /build /test /review /ship
8 slash commands that map to the development lifecycle. Each one activates the right skills automatically.
| What you're doing | Command | Key principle |
|---|---|---|
| Define what to build | /spec | Spec before code |
| Plan how to build it | /plan | Small, atomic tasks |
| Build incrementally | /build | One slice at a time |
| Prove it works | /test | Tests are proof |
| Review before merge | /review | Improve code health |
| Audit web performance | /webperf | Measure before you optimize |
| Simplify the code | /code-simplify | Clarity over cleverness |
| Ship to production | /ship | Faster is safer |
Want fewer manual steps once the spec exists? /build auto generates the plan and implements every task in a single approved pass — you approve the plan once, then it runs autonomously. It removes the human stepping between tasks, not the verification: every task is still test-driven and committed individually, and it pauses on failures or risky steps.
Skills also activate automatically based on what you're doing — designing an API triggers api-and-interface-design, building UI triggers frontend-ui-engineering, and so on.
Fastest path — any agent, one command. The open skills CLI installs into 70+ agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Copilot, Cline, and more):
npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills # install all 24 skills
npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --list # browse before installing
Or grab individual skills:
npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill code-review-and-quality # five-axis review before merge
npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill interview-me # requirements interrogation, one question at a time
npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill test-driven-development # red-green-refactor, enforced
Prefer a native integration? Pick your tool below.
Marketplace install:
/plugin marketplace add addyosmani/agent-skills
/plugin install agent-skills@addy-agent-skills
SSH errors? The marketplace clones repos via SSH. If you don't have SSH keys set up on GitHub, either add your SSH key or use the full HTTPS URL to force HTTPS cloning during the marketplace-add step:
/plugin marketplace add https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git /plugin install agent-skills@addy-agent-skillsIf
/plugin installstill fails withgit@github.com: Permission denied (publickey)on Windows or macOS, the recommended workaround is to configure Git once to rewrite GitHub SSH URLs to HTTPS for subprocess clones:git config --global url."https://github.com/".insteadOf git@github.com:
Local / development:
git clone https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git
claude --plugin-dir /path/to/agent-skills
Put workflow skills under .cursor/skills/ (sync from agent-skills/skills/) and short policies in .cursor/rules/*.mdc — do not paste full skills into rules. See docs/cursor-setup.md.
Install as a native plugin for skills, subagents, and slash commands. See docs/antigravity-setup.md.
Install from the repo:
agy plugin install https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git
Install from a local clone:
git clone https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git
agy plugin install ./agent-skills
Install as native skills for auto-discovery, or add to GEMINI.md for persistent context. See docs/gemini-cli-setup.md.
Install from the repo:
gemini skills install https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git --path skills
Install from a local clone:
gemini skills install ./agent-skills/skills/
Add skill contents to your Windsurf rules configuration. See docs/windsurf-setup.md.
Uses agent-driven skill execution via AGENTS.md and the skill tool.
Use agent definitions from agents/ as Copilot personas and skill content in .github/copilot-instructions.md. See docs/copilot-setup.md.
Install as a native Codex plugin (Codex CLI v0.122+):
codex plugin marketplace add addyosmani/agent-skills
Codex reads the root skills/ directory directly through .codex-plugin/plugin.json. Once installed, invoke skills in chat using @ (e.g., @spec-driven-development). See docs/codex-setup.md for local installation and troubleshooting.
Skills are plain Markdown - they work with any agent that accepts system prompts or instruction files. See docs/getting-started.md.
Already installed? How you roll the pack out depends on your codebase. The Adoption Guide covers two paths: the full lifecycle from day one for a greenfield project, or an incremental, verification-first rollout for an established codebase.
The commands above are entry points. The pack includes 24 skills total — 23 lifecycle skills plus the using-agent-skills meta-skill. Each skill is a structured workflow with steps, verification gates, and anti-rationalization tables. You can also reference any skill directly.
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| using-agent-skills | Maps incoming work to the right skill workflow and defines shared operating rules | Starting a session or deciding which skill applies |
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| interview-me | One-question-at-a-time interview that extracts what the user actually wants instead of what they think they should want, until ~95% confidence | The ask is underspecified, or the user invokes "interview me" / "grill me" |
| idea-refine | Structured divergent/convergent thinking to turn vague ideas into concrete proposals | You have a rough concept that needs exploration |
| spec-driven-development | Write a PRD covering objectives, commands, structure, code style, testing, and boundaries before any code | Starting a new project, feature, or significant change |
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| planning-and-task-breakdown | Decompose specs into small, verifiable tasks with acceptance criteria and dependency ordering | You have a spec and need implementable units |
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| incremental-implementation | Thin vertical slices - implement, test, verify, commit. Feature flags, safe defaults, rollback-friendly changes | Any change touching more than one file |
| test-driven-development | Red-Green-Refactor, test pyramid (80/15/5), test sizes, DAMP over DRY, Beyonce Rule, browser testing | Implementing logic, fixing bugs, or changing behavior |
| context-engineering | Feed agents the right information at the right time - rules files, context packing, MCP integrations | Starting a session, switching tasks, or when output quality drops |
| source-driven-development | Ground every framework decision in official documentation - verify, cite sources, flag what's unverified | You want authoritative, source-cited code for any framework or library |
| doubt-driven-development | Adversarial fresh-context review of every non-trivial decision in-flight - CLAIM → EXTRACT → DOUBT → RECONCILE → STOP, with optional user-authorized cross-model escalation | Stakes are high (production, security, irreversible), working in unfamiliar code, or a confident output is cheaper to verify now than to debug later |
| frontend-ui-engineering | Component architecture, design systems, state management, responsive design, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility | Building or modifying user-facing interfaces |
| api-and-interface-design | Contract-first design, Hyrum's Law, One-Version Rule, error semantics, boundary validation | Designing APIs, module boundaries, or public interfaces |
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| browser-testing-with-devtools | Chrome DevTools MCP for live runtime data - DOM inspection, console logs, network traces, performance profiling | Building or debugging anything that runs in a browser |
| debugging-and-error-recovery | Five-step triage: reproduce, localize, reduce, fix, guard. Stop-the-line rule, safe fallbacks | Tests fail, builds break, or behavior is unexpected |
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| code-review-and-quality | Five-axis review, change sizing (~100 lines), severity labels (Nit/Optional/FYI), review speed norms, splitting strategies | Before merging any change |
| code-simplification | Chesterton's Fence, Rule of 500, reduce complexity while preserving exact behavior | Code works but is harder to read or maintain than it should be |
| security-and-hardening | OWASP Top 10 prevention, auth patterns, secrets management, dependency auditing, three-tier boundary system | Handling user input, auth, data storage, or external integrations |
| performance-optimization | Measure-first approach - Core Web Vitals targets, profiling workflows, bundle analysis, anti-pattern detection | Performance requirements exist or you suspect regressions |
| Skill | What It Does | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| git-workflow-and-versioning | Trunk-based development, atomic commits, change sizing (~100 lines), the commit-as-save-point pattern | Making any code change (always) |
| ci-cd-and-automation | Shift Left, Faster is Safer, feature flags, quality gate pipelines, failure feedback loops | Setting up or modifying build and deploy pipelines |
| deprecation-and-migration | Code-as-liability mindset, compulsory vs advisory deprecation, migration patterns, zombie code removal | Removing old systems, migrating users, or sunsetting features |
| documentation-and-adrs | Architecture Decision Records, API docs, inline documentation standards - document the why | Making architectural decisions, changing APIs, or shipping features |
| observability-and-instrumentation | Structured logging, RED metrics, OpenTelemetry tracing, symptom-based alerting - instrument as you build | Adding telemetry, or shipping anything that runs in production |
| shipping-and-launch | Pre-launch checklists, feature flag lifecycle, staged rollouts, rollback procedures, monitoring setup | Preparing to deploy to production |
Pre-configured specialist personas for targeted reviews:
| Agent | Role | Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| code-reviewer | Senior Staff Engineer | Five-axis code review with "would a staff engineer approve this?" standard |
| test-engineer | QA Specialist | Test strategy, coverage analysis, and the Prove-It pattern |
| security-auditor | Security Engineer | Vulnerability detection, threat modeling, OWASP assessment |
| web-performance-auditor | Web Performance Engineer | Core Web Vitals audit with Quick/Deep modes and a metric-honesty rule; run it via /webperf |
See docs/agents.md for the decision matrix, orchestration rules, and how personas compose with skills and slash commands.
Quick-reference material that skills pull in when needed:
| Reference | Covers |
|---|---|
| definition-of-done.md | Project-wide standing bar every change clears, contrasted with per-task acceptance criteria |
| testing-patterns.md | Test structure, naming, mocking, React/API/E2E examples, anti-patterns (JavaScript/TypeScript) |
| security-checklist.md | Pre-commit checks, auth, input validation, headers, CORS, OWASP Top 10 |
| performance-checklist.md | Core Web Vitals targets, frontend/backend checklists, measurement commands |
| accessibility-checklist.md | Keyboard nav, screen readers, visual design, ARIA, testing tools |
| observability-checklist.md | On-call questions, structured logging, RED/USE metrics, tracing, symptom-based alerting, pre-launch gate |
| orchestration-patterns.md | Endorsed multi-persona orchestration patterns, anti-patterns, and the "personas don't invoke personas" rule |
Every skill follows a consistent anatomy:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SKILL.md │
│ │
│ ┌─ Frontmatter ─────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ name: lowercase-hyphen-name │ │
│ │ description: Guides agents through [task].│ │
│ │ Use when… │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ Overview → What this skill does │
│ When to Use → Triggering conditions │
│ Process → Step-by-step workflow │
│ Rationalizations → Excuses + rebuttals │
│ Red Flags → Signs something's wrong │
│ Verification → Evidence requirements │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Key design choices:
SKILL.md is the entry point. Supporting references load only when needed, keeping token usage minimal.agent-skills/
├── skills/ # 24 skills (23 lifecycle + 1 meta)
│ ├── interview-me/ # Define
│ ├── idea-refine/ # Define
│ ├── spec-driven-development/ # Define
│ ├── planning-and-task-breakdown/ # Plan
│ ├── incremental-implementation/ # Build
│ ├── context-engineering/ # Build
│ ├── source-driven-development/ # Build
│ ├── doubt-driven-development/ # Build
│ ├── frontend-ui-engineering/ # Build
│ ├── test-driven-development/ # Build
│ ├── api-and-interface-design/ # Build
│ ├── browser-testing-with-devtools/ # Verify
│ ├── debugging-and-error-recovery/ # Verify
│ ├── code-review-and-quality/ # Review
│ ├── code-simplification/ # Review
│ ├── security-and-hardening/ # Review
│ ├── performance-optimization/ # Review
│ ├── git-workflow-and-versioning/ # Ship
│ ├── ci-cd-and-automation/ # Ship
│ ├── deprecation-and-migration/ # Ship
│ ├── documentation-and-adrs/ # Ship
│ ├── observability-and-instrumentation/ # Ship
│ ├── shipping-and-launch/ # Ship
│ └── using-agent-skills/ # Meta: how to use this pack
├── agents/ # 4 specialist personas
├── references/ # 7 supplementary checklists
├── hooks/ # Session lifecycle hooks
├── .claude/commands/ # 8 slash commands (Claude Code)
├── .gemini/commands/ # 8 slash commands (Gemini CLI)
├── commands/ # 8 slash commands (Antigravity CLI)
├── plugin.json # Antigravity plugin manifest
└── docs/ # Setup guides per tool
AI coding agents default to the shortest path - which often means skipping specs, tests, security reviews, and the practices that make software reliable. Agent Skills gives agents structured workflows that enforce the same discipline senior engineers bring to production code.
Each skill encodes hard-won engineering judgment: when to write a spec, what to test, how to review, and when to ship. These aren't generic prompts - they're the kind of opinionated, process-driven workflows that separate production-quality work from prototype-quality work.
Skills bake in best practices from Google's engineering culture — including concepts from Software Engineering at Google and Google's engineering practices guide. You'll find Hyrum's Law in API design, the Beyonce Rule and test pyramid in testing, change sizing and review speed norms in code review, Chesterton's Fence in simplification, trunk-based development in git workflow, Shift Left and feature flags in CI/CD, and a dedicated deprecation skill treating code as a liability. These aren't abstract principles — they're embedded directly into the step-by-step workflows agents follow.
Wondering how this stacks up against Superpowers or Matt Pocock's skills? See docs/comparison.md for an honest, side-by-side look at how the three are shaped differently and when to reach for each — including a link to a controlled head-to-head experiment.
Skills should be specific (actionable steps, not vague advice), verifiable (clear exit criteria with evidence requirements), battle-tested (based on real workflows), and minimal (only what's needed to guide the agent).
See docs/skill-anatomy.md for the format specification and CONTRIBUTING.md for guidelines.
agent-skills is built and maintained by:
| Name | GitHub | Role | |
|---|---|---|---|
![]() | Addy Osmani | @addyosmani | Creator |
![]() | Federico Bartoli | @federicobartoli | Collaborator |
![]() | Joan León | @nucliweb | Collaborator |
MIT - use these skills in your projects, teams, and tools.
name: incremental-implementation
description: Delivers changes incrementally. Use when implementing any feature or change that touches more than one file. Use when you're about to write a large amount of code at once, or when a task feels too big to land in one step.Build in thin vertical slices — implement one piece, test it, verify it, then expand. Avoid implementing an entire feature in one pass. Each increment should leave the system in a working, testable state. This is the execution discipline that makes large features manageable.
When NOT to use: Single-file, single-function changes where the scope is already minimal.
┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Implement ──→ Test ──→ Verify ──┐ │
│ ▲ │ │
│ └───── Commit ◄─────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ Next slice │
│ │
└──────────────────────────────────────┘
For each slice:
git-workflow-and-versioning for atomic commit guidance)Build one complete path through the stack:
Slice 1: Create a task (DB + API + basic UI)
→ Tests pass, user can create a task via the UI
Slice 2: List tasks (query + API + UI)
→ Tests pass, user can see their tasks
Slice 3: Edit a task (update + API + UI)
→ Tests pass, user can modify tasks
Slice 4: Delete a task (delete + API + UI + confirmation)
→ Tests pass, full CRUD complete
Each slice delivers working end-to-end functionality.
When backend and frontend need to develop in parallel:
Slice 0: Define the API contract (types, interfaces, OpenAPI spec)
Slice 1a: Implement backend against the contract + API tests
Slice 1b: Implement frontend against mock data matching the contract
Slice 2: Integrate and test end-to-end
Tackle the riskiest or most uncertain piece first:
Slice 1: Prove the WebSocket connection works (highest risk)
Slice 2: Build real-time task updates on the proven connection
Slice 3: Add offline support and reconnection
If Slice 1 fails, you discover it before investing in Slices 2 and 3.
Before writing any code, ask: "What is the simplest thing that could work?"
After writing code, review it against these checks:
SIMPLICITY CHECK:
✗ Generic EventBus with middleware pipeline for one notification
✓ Simple function call
✗ Abstract factory pattern for two similar components
✓ Two straightforward components with shared utilities
✗ Config-driven form builder for three forms
✓ Three form components
Three similar lines of code is better than a premature abstraction. Implement the naive, obviously-correct version first. Optimize only after correctness is proven with tests.
Touch only what the task requires.
Do NOT:
If you notice something worth improving outside your task scope, note it — don't fix it:
NOTICED BUT NOT TOUCHING:
- src/utils/format.ts has an unused import (unrelated to this task)
- The auth middleware could use better error messages (separate task)
→ Want me to create tasks for these?
Each increment changes one logical thing. Don't mix concerns:
Bad: One commit that adds a new component, refactors an existing one, and updates the build config.
Good: Three separate commits — one for each change.
After each increment, the project must build and existing tests must pass. Don't leave the codebase in a broken state between slices.
If a feature isn't ready for users but you need to merge increments:
// Feature flag for work-in-progress
const ENABLE_TASK_SHARING = process.env.FEATURE_TASK_SHARING === 'true';
if (ENABLE_TASK_SHARING) {
// New sharing UI
}
This lets you merge small increments to the main branch without exposing incomplete work.
New code should default to safe, conservative behavior:
// Safe: disabled by default, opt-in
export function createTask(data: TaskInput, options?: { notify?: boolean }) {
const shouldNotify = options?.notify ?? false;
// ...
}
Each increment should be independently revertable:
When directing an agent to implement incrementally:
"Let's implement Task 3 from the plan.
Start with just the database schema change and the API endpoint.
Don't touch the UI yet — we'll do that in the next increment.
After implementing, run the repository's test and build commands to
verify nothing is broken."
Be explicit about what's in scope and what's NOT in scope for each increment.
After each increment, verify with the repository's own commands (see the test-driven-development skill's Discover the Stack First section):
npm test, ./gradlew test, pytest, ...)npx tsc --noEmit, mypy, ...)Note: Run each verification command after a change that could affect it. After a successful run, don't repeat the same command unless the code has changed since — re-running on unchanged code adds no information.
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I'll test it all at the end" | Bugs compound. A bug in Slice 1 makes Slices 2-5 wrong. Test each slice. |
| "It's faster to do it all at once" | It feels faster until something breaks and you can't find which of 500 changed lines caused it. |
| "These changes are too small to commit separately" | Small commits are free. Large commits hide bugs and make rollbacks painful. |
| "I'll add the feature flag later" | If the feature isn't complete, it shouldn't be user-visible. Add the flag now. |
| "This refactor is small enough to include" | Refactors mixed with features make both harder to review and debug. Separate them. |
| "Let me run the build command again just to be sure" | After a successful run, repeating the same command adds nothing unless the code has changed since. Run it again after subsequent edits, not as reassurance. |
After completing all increments for a task:
Per-increment verification is the local check. Before declaring a task done, apply the project-wide Definition of Done as the final gate, the standing bar every increment clears regardless of the task. See references/definition-of-done.md.
评论 (0)
暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!