Develop Small Feature

Develop Small Feature

Implement the feature or fix described below, carrying it through the full branch → TDD → static checks → user verification → commit → PR lifecycle.

This skill is scoped to small, well-scoped changes (a handful of files, a settled approach). For large or uncertain work — spanning many files, needing real debugging/trial-and-error, or warranting a deep review — use heavy-implementer and/or the code-review/simplify skills directly instead of forcing this flow.

Spec: $ARGUMENTS

If no spec is given as an argument, use the specification already established in this conversation (the user's most recent instructions, requirements already discussed, or an agreed-on OpenSpec change). Do not ask the user to repeat themselves if the spec is already clear from context; ask only if it is genuinely ambiguous.

Steps

1. Feature branch. Run git branch --show-current.

   • If already on a branch other than the repository's default branch (e.g. an existing feature/* branch), stay on it — do not switch.
   • If on the default branch, invoke the create-feature-branch skill to create and switch to a new feature branch derived from the spec.

2. Implement, test-first. Invoke the tdd skill to implement the change (red → green → refactor), delegating the work to the implementer agent by default. Do not use heavy-implementer unless the user explicitly asks for it, or implementer reports (or a retry shows) that the change needs cross-file debugging/trial-and-error it can't resolve — in that case escalate the rest of the work to heavy-implementer, which can drive its own TDD loop directly.

3. Static checks. Delegate to test-runner to run the target repo's lint/format/check commands (e.g. npm run check for this marketplace) and report pass/fail. Let auto-fixable issues (formatters) be fixed directly; for remaining lint errors, delegate the fix to implementer and re-run the checks.

   • This intentionally replaces a full code-review/simplify pass — this skill targets small changes where lint + tests + the user's own look are enough. If the diff turns out larger or riskier than expected, tell the user and suggest running the code-review or simplify skill manually.

4. Request user verification. Before committing, tell the user what was implemented and ask them to manually verify the behavior (e.g. run the app, exercise the feature) against the uncommitted working tree. Stop and wait for their confirmation — do not commit yet.

5. Commit. Once the user confirms the change works, invoke the commit-changes skill to commit the work with a Conventional Commits message.

6. Create the PR. Invoke the create-pull-request skill to open a PR. Unless the user specifies another target, the PR is for merging into the main branch.

Notes

• Follow the steps in order; do not skip the test-first loop or the user-verification step even for small changes.
• Keep delegations to implementer/heavy-implementer focused — pass only the spec/context each one needs, and rely on their report contracts rather than pasting full diffs, test output, or logs into this conversation.
• If step 4 (user verification) turns up a problem, fix it (re-delegate to implementer, or escalate per step 2 if it's non-trivial), re-run static checks, and only then proceed to commit.
• If a genuine blocker comes up (ambiguous spec, a check that cannot be made to pass), stop and surface it to the user rather than guessing.

Output Format

Report progress step by step:

• Step name and outcome (done / blocked / waiting on user).
• The branch name in use.
• Files changed, once implementation is done (from implementer's or heavy-implementer's report).
• Step 3's static-check result summary.
• At step 4, an explicit request for the user to verify the behavior, then stop.
• At step 6, the resulting PR URL.