lfe-builder

An LFE workflow skill for acting as the Builder: the role that implements an approved plan. It writes the planned code and follows rules for core logic, configuration, and separation between business code and external connections.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to implement an approved slice, preserve the project's architecture, and run the required follow-up testing workflow.
Why use it?
It keeps implementation tied to the approved plan and reduces accidental features, scattered logic, and hard-coded settings.

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/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-builder
Any agent
npx skills add StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering --skill lfe-builder
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 34 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,723 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 $0.00034 $0.01723
Opus 5 $0.00017 $0.00861
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00345
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00172

Measured 3d ago against content hash 4b82f0c1cbcb, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

lfe-builder 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 3d 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.

.agents/skills/lfe-builder/SKILL.md · 102 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

LFE Builder

Mission

Execute the approved plan in .plans/active_plan.md into production-ready code. You are the "Maker" who adheres to strict engineering standards and logic sovereignty.

Sub-Pipeline (execute in this order)

  1. /lfe-builder (this skill) → Implement the plan
  2. /lfe-tdd → Red-green-refactor quality pass on what you just built → writes .plans/tdd_report.md

Toolbox

  • /lfe-tdd: Mandatory Step 2. Run after implementation to validate and refactor.

Hard Rules

  1. Plan Adherence: Implement only the features defined in the active plan.
  2. Logic Sovereignty: Core business/domain logic must be centralized in the designated "Engine" or core modules.
  3. No Magic Numbers: All configurable values must be extracted into constants files.
  4. Domain/Boundary Separation: Place stable domain logic in core modules (per Logic Sovereignty); keep volatile boundary code (I/O, UI, framework wiring, external integrations) in separate adapter layers. The project's engineering-standards.md defines what "core" and "boundary" mean for this project type.
  5. File-Based Input: Read active_plan.md as the source of truth, not conversation context.

Workflow

  1. Check plan-critique gate (machine-checkable, file-based): Before reading anything else, open .plans/plan_critique.md and parse its YAML frontmatter. The gate opens only when one of these is true:

    • verdict: PASS (any brain_confirmation value), or
    • verdict: WARN AND brain_confirmation is a non-null ISO-8601 timestamp.

    Halt and refuse to write to src/ in any other case — including: file absent, verdict: BLOCK, verdict: WARN with brain_confirmation: null, or unparseable frontmatter. Infer nothing about Brain confirmation from the conversation; the typed frontmatter field is the only valid signal. If halting, tell the Brain: "Plan-critique gate is closed (reason: <missing file | verdict: BLOCK | WARN not confirmed in file>). Re-run /lfe-plan-critique or update brain_confirmation before /lfe-builder can proceed."

  2. Review: Read .plans/active_plan.md and engineering-standards.md, then resolve the re-entry mode in this order:

    • Rework re-entry (highest precedence)if .plans/rework_directive.md exists and its slice: matches active_plan.md's slice:: the Brain rejected this slice at the finalization gate. Read the ## Rework Directive and re-implement the named defect in the slice's files — run Implement → Refactor → Mark Done normally (the rework path re-implements; unlike the diagnose path below, it does not skip Implement). This branch wins over any diagnosis_report.md present. The plan-critique gate (Step 1) keys on plan_critique.md verdict, which holds across rework rounds, so the already-open gate stays open — no re-critique.
    • Diagnosis retry — else if .plans/diagnosis_report.md exists, check its slice: field against active_plan.md's slice: field:
      • Match → this is a legitimate retry path after a failed inspection. /lfe-diagnose has already applied the fix to src/ and recorded the Root Cause and Fix Summary. Read those sections so you understand the post-diagnosis state, but leave the slice as /lfe-diagnose fixed it — skip Steps 3–4 (Implement/Refactor) and proceed directly to Step 5 (Mark Done) with a fresh builder_done.md whose ## Files Touched reflects the diagnose-applied fix and whose ## Notes for TDD flags the regression-test added by diagnose.
      • Mismatch → the diagnosis report is stale (e.g., from a previous slice whose cleanup didn't complete). Ignore it and proceed with implementation normally from Step 3. (Hygiene will flag the stale file as orphaned on its next sweep.)
    • Fresh implementation — else proceed normally from Step 3.
  3. Implement: Use vertical slices (one test -> one implementation) to build the feature.

  4. Refactor: Clean up the implementation once the tests pass, without changing behavior.

  5. Mark Done: Before handing off to TDD, write .plans/builder_done.md so the implementation phase has a physical checkpoint for crash recovery (so a session that dies between coding and TDD resumes without re-implementing). Schema below.

  6. TDD Pass: Run /lfe-tdd for the red-green-refactor quality pass.

  7. Automated Testing: Automatically run the full test suite after dev work to verify the new additions and catch regressions.

  8. Handoff: Once code is written, builder_done.md exists, TDD pass complete, and all automated tests are passing, signal the transition to Inspector.

Read the full file on GitHub · 102 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. 3d ago First seen · 102 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 4b82f0c1cbcb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

lfe-builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering (43 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,723 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

context-engineering

Manages agent context for effective AI-assisted development. Use when working on large codebases, when the agent seems to lack necessary context, when structuring CLAUDE.md or project guidance files, or when coordinating long multi-step development sessions.

vanja-emichi/a0_agent_skills · 52 tokens

GuoFanDirector_Skills

郭帆导演风格视听语言体系,涵盖分镜设计、场景气氛、预演动态等导演工作流知识.

shuhaolin63-hash/GuoFanDirector_Skills · 38 tokens

embedded-captions

Add captions or subtitles to an existing single-subject talking-head video without editing the footage. Use for plain verbatim captions, cinematic captions embedded behind the subject, VFX captions, “炸/特效/酷炫字幕,” or a named identity from the 35-style catalog. Route by visual identity, not by backend engine. The quiet…

heygen-com/hyperframes · 120 tokens

general-video

Author or edit a custom HyperFrames composition when no specialized workflow fits, or when BRIEF.md sets flow: companion. Use for longer or multi-scene pieces, brand and sizzle reels, montages, static loops, static title cards, footage remixes, and freeform builds. Use motion-graphics instead for a short unnarrated…

heygen-com/hyperframes · 92 tokens

happiness-skill

当用户问「怎么才能更幸福/为什么得到了还不满足/怎么减少焦虑」时调用。 核心理念: 幸福是缺憾感清空的默认状态, 是可训练的技能; 欲望是与自己的契约(得到前不快乐), 同时只留一个重大欲望; 活在当下。 不适用于: 临床抑郁等需要专业治疗的场景(本书方法不能替代医疗)。 Triggers: 幸福/不快乐/欲望/焦虑/知足/活在当下/happiness/desire/anxiety.

kangarooking/cangjie-skill · 136 tokens

docx-comment-reply

Reply to comments (批注) in Word .docx/.doc files: extract comment context, draft replies, write threaded replies back, and validate OOXML.

foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills · 39 tokens