home / skills / benredmond / apex / implement

implement skill

/skills/implement

This skill guides you through implementing the approved architecture by building code, running tests, and iterating until all validations pass.

npx playbooks add skill benredmond/apex --skill implement

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (1)
SKILL.md
10.6 KB
---
name: implement
description: Build and validate loop (BUILDER + validation) - implements the architecture, runs tests, iterates until passing. Writes code following the plan.
argument-hint: [task-identifier]
---

<skill name="apex:implement" phase="implement">

<overview>
Implement the architecture from the plan phase. Build code, run tests, iterate until all validations pass.

Combines BUILDER (write code) and validation (run tests) in a tight loop.
</overview>

<phase-model>
phase_model:
  frontmatter: [research, plan, implement, rework, complete]
  rework: enabled
  db_role: [RESEARCH, ARCHITECT, BUILDER, BUILDER_VALIDATOR, REVIEWER, DOCUMENTER]
  legacy_db_role: [VALIDATOR]
source_of_truth:
  gating: frontmatter.phase
  telemetry: db_role
</phase-model>

<phase-gate requires="plan|rework" sets="implement">
  <reads-file>./apex/tasks/[ID].md</reads-file>
  <requires-section>plan</requires-section>
  <appends-section>implementation</appends-section>
</phase-gate>

<principles>
- **Follow the Plan**: The architecture was approved - implement it, don't redesign
- **Pattern Discipline**: Only use patterns from the plan's pattern selection
- **Fail Fast**: Run tests frequently, fix issues immediately
- **No Guessing**: If spec is unclear, return to plan or ask user
</principles>

<initial-response>
<if-no-arguments>
I'll implement the planned architecture. Please provide the task identifier.

You can find active tasks in `./apex/tasks/` or run with:
`/apex:implement [identifier]`
</if-no-arguments>
<if-arguments>Load task file and begin implementation.</if-arguments>
</initial-response>

<workflow>

<step id="1" title="Load task and verify phase">
<instructions>
1. Read `./apex/tasks/[identifier].md`
2. Verify frontmatter `phase: plan` OR `phase: rework`
3. Parse `<task-contract>` first and treat it as authoritative scope/ACs
4. Parse `<plan>` section, especially `<builder-handoff>`
5. If phase == rework, treat this as a Ship REJECT rework loop
6. If phase not in [plan, rework], refuse with: "Task is in [phase] phase. Expected: plan or rework"

Contract rules:
- Implementation MUST satisfy all AC-* or explicitly document unmet criteria
- If scope/ACs must change, append a <amendments><amendment ...> entry inside task-contract and bump its version
</instructions>

</step>

<step id="2" title="Extract implementation directives">
<extract-from-plan>
- `<builder-handoff><mission>` - What we're building
- `<builder-handoff><core-architecture>` - The chosen approach
- `<builder-handoff><pattern-guidance>` - Patterns to apply with locations
- `<builder-handoff><implementation-order>` - Sequence of steps
- `<builder-handoff><validation-gates>` - Checks after each step
- `<builder-handoff><warnings>` - Critical risks to avoid
- `<architecture-decision><files-to-modify>` - Existing files to change
- `<architecture-decision><files-to-create>` - New files to add
</extract-from-plan>

<extract-from-contract>
- `<task-contract><acceptance-criteria>` - AC-* to track and validate
</extract-from-contract>

<create-todo-list>
Create TodoWrite items for each implementation step from the plan.
</create-todo-list>
</step>

<step id="3" title="Pre-implementation verification">
<checks>
- [ ] All files to modify exist and are readable
- [ ] No syntax errors in current codebase (`npm run lint` or equivalent)
- [ ] Tests currently passing (baseline)
- [ ] Dependencies available
</checks>
<on-failure>Document blockers and ask user how to proceed.</on-failure>
</step>

<step id="4" title="Implementation loop">
<loop until="all steps complete AND all tests pass">

<builder-phase>
<for-each-step>
1. **Read target files** fully before modifying
2. **Apply patterns** from plan's pattern-guidance
3. **Write code** following architecture decision
4. **Document pattern usage**: `# [PAT:ID] ★★★★☆ (X uses, Y% success)`
5. **Run syntax check** immediately after writing
</for-each-step>

<pattern-discipline>
ONLY use patterns listed in `<plan><patterns><applying>`.
DO NOT invent new pattern names.
If you need a pattern not in the plan, document it as a gap.
</pattern-discipline>

<failure-prevention>
Review `<plan><architecture-decision><risks>` before each step.
Apply mitigations proactively.
</failure-prevention>
</builder-phase>

<validator-phase>
<after-each-step>
1. Run validation gate from plan
2. If passes, continue to next step
3. If fails, fix and retry (max 3 attempts per step)
4. After 3 failures, document issue and ask user
</after-each-step>

<validation-commands>
- Syntax: `npm run lint` / `ruff check` / language-appropriate
- Types: `tsc --noEmit` / `mypy` / language-appropriate
- Unit tests: `npm test` / `pytest` / language-appropriate
- Integration: As specified in plan
</validation-commands>
</validator-phase>

<checkpoint-after-each-step>
Record a checkpoint in the task log after each step (summary + confidence).
</checkpoint-after-each-step>

</loop>
</step>

<step id="4.5" title="Pattern Evidence Gate">
<critical>
Before running full validation, verify all patterns you intend to claim.
</critical>

<verification-checklist>
For each pattern in `<patterns-used>`:
1. [ ] Pattern exists in `<plan><patterns><applying>`
2. [ ] Trust score matches what's in the plan
3. [ ] Location (file:line) is accurate and verifiable
4. [ ] Outcome is honest (worked|tweaked|failed)
</verification-checklist>

<evidence-collection>
Record pattern usage evidence BEFORE validation:
- pattern_id
- file and line range
- outcome (worked|tweaked|failed)
- notes on usage
</evidence-collection>

<fabrication-check>
IF any pattern in `<patterns-used>` is NOT in `<plan><patterns><applying>`:
→ REMOVE it from patterns-used
→ Document as "unplanned pattern discovered"
→ Do NOT claim it in the final reflection

Unplanned patterns can be documented as "new patterns" in the final reflection,
but NOT as "patterns used" (which updates confidence).
</fabrication-check>
</step>

<step id="5" title="Comprehensive validation">
<critical>
This is NOT optional. Run FULL test suite before completing.
</critical>

<spawn-validator>
<agent type="apex:test-validator">
**Task ID**: [taskId]
**Modified Files**: [list from implementation]
**Predictions**: [from plan's risk section]

Run: Syntax → Formatting → Type check → Unit tests → Integration tests → Coverage

Return: Validation report comparing predictions vs reality
</agent>
</spawn-validator>

<decision-logic>
IF any failures:
  → Return to builder-phase with issue list
  → Fix and re-run validation
  → Max 3 full cycles before escalating to user

IF only warnings:
  → Document for review phase
  → Proceed

IF all pass:
  → Proceed to write implementation section
</decision-logic>
</step>

<step id="6" title="Write implementation section to task file">
<output-format>
Append to `<implementation>` section:

```xml
<implementation>
<metadata>
  <timestamp>[ISO]</timestamp>
  <duration>[Time spent]</duration>
  <iterations>[Build-validate cycles]</iterations>
</metadata>

<files-modified>
  <file path="[path]">
    <changes>[Summary of what changed]</changes>
    <patterns-applied>
      <pattern id="PAT:X:Y">[How it was used]</pattern>
    </patterns-applied>
    <diff-summary>[Key additions/removals]</diff-summary>
  </file>
</files-modified>

<files-created>
  <file path="[path]">
    <purpose>[Why created]</purpose>
    <patterns-applied>[PAT:IDs]</patterns-applied>
    <test-file>[Corresponding test if any]</test-file>
  </file>
</files-created>

<validation-results>
  <syntax status="pass|fail">[Details]</syntax>
  <types status="pass|fail">[Details]</types>
  <tests status="pass|fail" passed="X" failed="Y" skipped="Z">[Details]</tests>
  <coverage>[Percentage if available]</coverage>
</validation-results>

<acceptance-criteria-status>
  <criterion id="AC-1" status="met|not-met">[Evidence or reason]</criterion>
</acceptance-criteria-status>

<patterns-used>
  <pattern id="PAT:X:Y" location="file:line" outcome="worked|tweaked|failed">
    [Notes on usage]
  </pattern>
</patterns-used>

<issues-encountered>
  <issue resolved="true|false">
    <description>[What happened]</description>
    <resolution>[How fixed, or why unresolved]</resolution>
  </issue>
</issues-encountered>

<deviations-from-plan>
  <deviation>
    <planned>[What plan said]</planned>
    <actual>[What we did instead]</actual>
    <reason>[Why deviation was necessary]</reason>
  </deviation>
</deviations-from-plan>

<reviewer-handoff>
  <summary>[What was built]</summary>
  <key-changes>[Most important modifications]</key-changes>
  <test-coverage>[What's tested]</test-coverage>
  <known-limitations>[Edge cases, TODOs]</known-limitations>
  <patterns-for-reflection>[Patterns to report in the final reflection]</patterns-for-reflection>
</reviewer-handoff>

<next-steps>
Run `/apex:ship [identifier]` to review and finalize.
</next-steps>
</implementation>
```
</output-format>

<update-frontmatter>
Set `phase: implement` and `updated: [ISO timestamp]`
</update-frontmatter>

</step>

</workflow>

<critical-requirements>

<pattern-fabrication-prevention>
YOU CANNOT FABRICATE PATTERNS.

Only claim patterns that exist in `<plan><patterns><applying>`.
In `<patterns-used>`, only list patterns from the plan.
Pattern IDs claimed here will be validated during `/apex:ship`.

VIOLATION: Claiming "PAT:NEW:THING" that was never in the plan
CONSEQUENCE: The final reflection becomes unreliable and confidence becomes meaningless
</pattern-fabrication-prevention>

<syntax-gate>
Before completing implementation:
- Run linting
- Check for common errors (double async, missing brackets)
- Fix ALL syntax errors before proceeding
- DO NOT transition to ship with syntax errors
</syntax-gate>

<contract-gate>
Before finishing:
- Confirm all AC-* are met, or explicitly mark any unmet criteria with reasons
- If contract scope/ACs changed, record an amendment with rationale and bump contract version
</contract-gate>

<spec-unclear-protocol>
If implementation reveals spec ambiguity:
1. Document the ambiguity
2. Ask user for clarification
3. If architectural change needed, note it for plan revision
4. Do NOT guess and implement wrong thing
</spec-unclear-protocol>

</critical-requirements>

<success-criteria>
- All implementation steps from plan completed
- All validation gates passed
- Full test suite passing
- No syntax errors
- Acceptance criteria status reported for all AC-*
- Patterns used are from plan only (Pattern Evidence Gate passed)
- Deviations documented with reasons
- Task file updated at ./apex/tasks/[ID].md
- Checkpoints recorded at start, per-step, and end
- Pattern evidence recorded for usage
- Task metadata updated for build/validate completion
</success-criteria>

<next-phase>
`/apex:ship [identifier]` - Review, document, and reflect
</next-phase>

</skill>

Overview

This skill implements a planned architecture by executing a build-and-validate loop. It writes code according to the approved plan, runs the specified validation gates, and iterates until all acceptance criteria and tests pass. The process enforces pattern discipline and documents each change and validation result.

How this skill works

Load the task file and verify the phase is plan or rework, then extract the builder handoff and acceptance criteria. Create a todo list from the plan, perform pre-implementation checks, and run a repeated cycle of coding steps followed by the plan-specified validation gates. Record checkpoints, pattern evidence, and validation outcomes; append a structured implementation section to the task file when all tests and ACs are met.

When to use it

  • When a task is in the plan or rework phase and ready for hands-on implementation.
  • When the architecture and patterns have been approved and must be implemented exactly.
  • When you need an enforced build→test loop with documented checkpoints and evidence.
  • When acceptance criteria (AC-*) must be validated and reported in the task file.

Best practices

  • Follow the plan strictly; do not redesign during implementation without documented amendments.
  • Only apply patterns declared in the plan; document any missing pattern as a gap.
  • Run syntax and test commands after each change (fail fast) and fix issues immediately.
  • Record pattern evidence (file:line, outcome, notes) before claiming usage.
  • Limit retries per step (max 3) and escalate unresolved blockers to the user.

Example use cases

  • Implementing a frontend feature set using an approved component architecture and pattern list.
  • Applying back-end API changes where contract ACs and tests are defined in the task file.
  • Completing a Ship Reject rework loop: apply fixes, validate, and document results.
  • Adding integration tests and iterating until test suite and coverage targets pass.

FAQ

What if the plan is unclear about a requirement?

Document the ambiguity, stop implementation, and request clarification or a plan revision; do not guess.

Can I introduce new patterns during implementation?

No. New patterns must be documented as unplanned gaps and cannot be claimed in patterns-used.

What happens if a validation gate fails repeatedly?

Retry up to three times, then document the issue and ask the user for direction or resources to unblock.