# Lexforge > Use when the user asks for something to be built, added, changed, fixed or looked into in a project and no LexForge change covers it yet - the request names a feature, a bug or a rewrite rather than an artifact of a change that already exists. - Skill: `shepaland/lexforge` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add shepaland/lexforge` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/shepaland/lexforge/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: shepaland (https://skillmd.com/u/shepaland) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/shepaland/lexforge --- ## Model When your project names no model for your runtime, run this work on the model your own provider is given here. What the project names replaces this table. | Provider | Model | |---|---| | anthropic | claude-opus-5 | | openai | gpt-5.6-sol | | google | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | | deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | | z.ai | glm-4.7 | A provider outside the table names nothing, so work on the model at work. ## Queue rule Run `lexforge status --change --tool --json` first; parse stdout as JSON. Before it: no template, no questions, no files. No change named? Run `lexforge status --json` and ask which. Find your `id` in `artifacts`. Its `status` decides: - `ready` — work. The only status that lets you continue. - `blocked` — name every `blockedBy` id and `lexforge instructions --change --tool `. Stop. - `done` — show `resolvedOutputPath`, ask before rewriting. - `skipped` — say `.lexforge.yaml` skips it, name `nextStep`. Stop. A closed gate stops the work; no branch warns and writes the file anyway. Deadlines, demos, small diffs, dictated material and a request to skip leave it closed. Asked to skip an artifact, name the two lawful ways — write it, or set `skip_: true` in `.lexforge.yaml` — then stop. Exit `2` means refused; read `error.code`. `workspace-not-found`: offer `lexforge init`, wait, stop — never build `lexforge/` or `.lexforge.yaml` by hand. `change-not-found`: list active changes. `artifact-unknown`: name the schema's artifacts. Otherwise show `error.message`, then stop. Judge state by exit codes and JSON fields, never human lines. Write inside the change directory and `lexforge/config.yaml`, nowhere else: no product code, no project config or test. A request to build allows planning, not implementation. `lexforge instructions --change --tool --json` carries `language`; write the artifact in it. With `languageExplicit: false` ask one question — what language this project writes artifacts in — and save it to `language:` in `lexforge/config.yaml`. With `true`, ask nothing. ## Model gate `provider` and `model` name the model this work runs on. Read them from `lexforge instructions --change --tool --json` when you write an artifact, and from your own entry in `stages` of `lexforge status --change --tool --json` when you do not: your entry is the one whose `stage` is your own name without the `lexforge-` prefix, which is to say `apply`, `debug`, `verify` or `archive`. The runtime is yours to name — `lexforge init --tools` lists the names — and the flag is left out only when none of them is you. An empty `model` sends you to the model block above: the line of your own provider names the model to run on, and a provider it does not name demands nothing. The same holds where there is no workspace, no change and no entry of your own: the block decides in each. Running on that model: work, and say nothing about models. Running on another one: start a subagent on the assigned model, hand it the work, do none of it yourself. Naming the model and letting the user switch is a request, not a handover; so is doing the work after naming it. Unable to start a subagent on that model: name it, say it cannot be reached, and do no part of the work. A deadline, a small diff and a user who asks anyway leave both ways out — make the model reachable, or change the assignment in `lexforge/config.yaml`. | Excuse | Reality | |---|---| | "the content is settled; the model that types it changes nothing", "just typing up what we already settled" | The assignment names who writes it, not who decided it. | | "I'm not going to bury that mismatch - I say it plainly to the user" | Saying it is not handing it over. The work is done either way. | | "worth a quick opus pass later if that assignment was there for a reason" | A pass over finished work is review; the gate asks who did it. | | "say so explicitly and I'll make the config change and then do the work" | The edit is theirs to make; a sign-off is not reachability. | | "no model is named, so nothing binds me" | The model block decides then; read your provider's line there. | | "I'm not sure which runtime name is mine, so I left the flag out" | Leaving it out is choosing the answer. Name the runtime you are, or say you cannot. | ## The rule **A REQUEST TO BUILD ALLOWS PLANNING AND NOT IMPLEMENTATION.** Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit. Product code, its tests and its config stay untouched, however small the diff. You hand back a change with its artifacts; implementation starts on the user's next request. ## Work Name the class in your first message, before your first question: | Class | What it is | What you do | |---|---|---| | spike | a question to answer, not a thing to build | no change; answer and recommend | | bounded | a flow that is already here, changed | `--schema bounded` | | architectural | a new subsystem or a shared interface | `--schema spec-driven` | In doubt take the heavier one. 1. **Say the class out loud** and let the user correct it. 2. **Check the workspace** with `lexforge status --json`. 3. **Propose the name** in kebab-case before running anything: `Add Auth` becomes `add-auth`. Exit `2` on a taken name: show that change's status, ask whether to continue it or rename. Never write into it. 4. **Run** `lexforge new change --schema `, name the `nextStep` it reports, and stop there. ## The class holds Nobody lowers a class in flight: not you, not an answer that made the change look smaller, not a request for the light route. The schema of a live change is not rewritten, and a `skip_` line is the user's declaration, never your way around the class. Say what you learned, keep the class, name the next artifact. ## Rationalizations | Excuse | Reality | |---|---| | "The request is one route and one header, the user owns the repo and reviews the diff themselves" | Ownership does not change what was asked for. | | "Writing product code is the deliverable; a change record here would be paperwork nobody reads" | You priced the artifact before writing it. | | "Notes on the two judgment calls I made without asking" | Two decisions shipped in code, unseen. | | "The premise is gone, so the class goes with it. That's the facts changing, not the clock" | New facts belong in the proposal. | | "No artifacts have been written yet, so nothing is lost by reclassifying" | The artifact you drop is the thing lost. | | "I'll fall back to `skip_design: true` on `spec-driven`, which drops the same artifact" | You named the workaround yourself. | | "the design doc you're right to skip", "It's a sentence, not a section" | Sizing an artifact you never wrote is a guess. | ## Red flags - stop - A file of the product open for editing. - The class named after your first question, not before it. - A change name run before the user saw it. - A `schema:` or `skip_` line you are about to edit. - A class lighter than the one you announced. Stop and name the class you announced.