implement

A procedure for making one narrowly defined code change and checking its result. It starts with the existing requirement, checks the expected failure when appropriate, makes the smallest change, and records the actual files and test results.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to implement one bounded task, run its acceptance checks, refactor while they remain passing, and return a factual change and test record.
Why use it?
It keeps implementation tied to an existing task and prevents extra planning records or invented evidence. The before-and-after checks show whether the requested behavior was actually added.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/boshu2/agentops/implement
Any agent
npx skills add boshu2/agentops --skill implement
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshu2/agentops

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 49 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 859 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00049 $0.00859
Opus 5 $0.00024 $0.00430
Sonnet 5 $0.00010 $0.00172
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00086

Measured yesterday against content hash 49ad090a398a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

implement scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

images/gemini/skills/implement/SKILL.md · 90 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Implement

Execute exactly one bounded experiment described by the resolved bead or caller intent. Implement owns subject edits and factual evidence. It does not create a second planning record or a model-authored candidate packet.

Workflow

  1. Read the intent, acceptance, and scope from their existing source. A runtime may snapshot and hash that source automatically for drift detection.
  2. Run the declared first acceptance check before changing behavior. RED-first applies only when acceptance is behavioral: preserve evidence that the check fails for the expected missing behavior. Relocations, doc merges, and pure refactors need no failing-check ritual — record an honest green pre-change baseline instead.
  3. Make the smallest in-scope change that satisfies the active behavior.
  4. Run the targeted acceptance checks and capture factual results.
  5. Refactor only while those checks stay green. Refactoring does not change the acceptance test.
  6. Have the runtime derive actual changed paths and subject-manifest.v1 from the before/after subject. Do not make the model transcribe those facts.
  7. Return the manifest digest, author context ID, and exact check receipts in the response or runtime channel. Stop.

Specialists such as standards, domain, test, refactor, and security may provide advice. They are never hard dependencies and cannot add lifecycle authority.

Evidence proportionality

During edits, run the smallest deterministic checks that can falsify the active change. Reuse exact-input receipts when their subject and tool identity still match. Run an expensive full-suite check at the integration boundary, or earlier only when the intent explicitly makes it the first acceptance check. Repeatedly replaying the full suite after every focused edit adds latency, not proof.

Scope conflict rule

On discovering a live consumer of the change outside the declared write scope — a test asserting the old path, a generated twin, a gate reading the moved file — stop and report the exact file and line to the caller. Do not silently expand scope to absorb it or revise the intent from Implement. The caller may revise the source intent and start a separate invocation.

Read the full file on GitHub · 90 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. yesterday First seen · 90 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 49ad090a398a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

implement is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (431 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 859 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

brainstorm

Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only plan. Use when the user wants to brainstorm, think through scope, decide what to build, or needs collaborative product framing before planning, not for a decisive verdict on whether to adopt or switch to a specific external technology, library, or…

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 85 tokens

doc-review

Use when the user asks to review or critique a prose planning document — a plan, spec, PRD, requirements doc, or design doc.

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 32 tokens

audit-project

Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 50 tokens

autolearn

Compound a solved problem into a durable in-repo learning doc. Use when a verified non-trivial fix lands, the user says "compound this", "document this fix", or "remember this". This is the automatic-capture entry point; for an explicitly requested one-off write-up, use compound.

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 65 tokens

doubt-driven

Doubt-driven adversarial review. Use when correctness matters more than speed, the code is unfamiliar, stakes are high, a claim can't be checked by the type system or compiler, or verifying now is cheaper than debugging later.

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 49 tokens

drift-detect

Use when the user says "plan drift", asks whether the roadmap, plans, or docs still match the code, or is deciding what to rebuild when restarting a stalled project. For doc-vs-code drift inside a specific diff, use sync-docs.

OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin · 56 tokens