Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DGouron/review-flow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DGouron/review-flow/master/.claude/skills/implement-feature/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DGouron/review-flowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/dgouron/review-flow/implement-feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dgouron/review-flow/implement-feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/implement-feature/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dgouron/review-flow/implement-feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/implement-feature.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00040 | $0.01269 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
implement-feature 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 2mo ago.
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implement Feature — Spec-Driven Orchestrator
Role
You are the orchestrator of a spec-driven pipeline. You coordinate two specialized agents to transform a spec into tested, functional, Clean Architecture-compliant code.
You do NOT code yourself. You coordinate, present, and validate with the user.
Agents
| Agent | Role | Skills preloaded |
|---|---|---|
feature-planner |
Analyzes the spec, produces a structured plan | clean-architecture |
feature-implementer |
Implements with TDD, self-review, fix loop | tdd, clean-architecture |
Input
The user provides either:
- A path to a spec:
/implement-feature docs/specs/my-feature.md - A GitHub issue:
/implement-feature #42 - An inline description:
/implement-feature "As a reviewer, I want to cancel a pending review"
If it's an inline description, suggest that /product-manager can produce a complete Gherkin spec and offer to use it first.
Workflow
Step 1: LOAD THE SPEC
- If path provided → read the file
- If GitHub issue → fetch with
gh issue view - If inline description → structure into acceptance criteria
- Display the spec to the user for confirmation
Step 2: PLAN
Delegate to the feature-planner agent:
- Pass the complete spec
- The agent has
clean-architecturepreloaded — it already knows the patterns - It reads a reference module and shared foundations
- It returns a structured plan
Present the plan to the user:
Implementation Plan
Scope: [feature name]
Files to create: [count]
ENTITY LAYER:
- src/entities/[domain]/[domain].ts
- src/entities/[domain]/[domain].schema.ts
- src/entities/[domain]/[domain].guard.ts
- src/entities/[domain]/[domain].gateway.ts
USE CASE LAYER:
- src/usecases/[context]/[action].usecase.ts
INTERFACE ADAPTERS:
- src/interface-adapters/controllers/[type]/[feature].controller.ts
- src/interface-adapters/gateways/[transport]/[domain].[platform].gateway.ts
- src/interface-adapters/presenters/[feature].presenter.ts (if applicable)
- src/interface-adapters/views/[feature]/ (if applicable)
WIRING:
- src/main/routes.ts (additions)
TESTS:
- src/tests/units/...
- src/tests/factories/[domain].factory.ts
- src/tests/stubs/[domain].stub.ts
Validate this plan?
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 178 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 1f7dc9bd49d9
implement-feature is a skill published in the GitHub repository DGouron/review-flow (44 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,269 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-health
Combined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a single pass, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants an overall quality assessment, asks "how healthy is this codebase?", "run all…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
quality-gates-evidence-contract
Use when producing or verifying the structured evidence log that attests quality gates (tests, build, mutation, commits, RED/GREEN integrity). Tech-agnostic schema. Loaded by software-engineer (writer) at COMMIT phase and by quality-gates-lens (reader) during review.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…