Feature Orchestrator Skill
π¨ CRITICAL: This Skill Runs BEFORE Feature Implementation
Purpose: Enforce research-backed CI/CD workflow, prevent code duplication, ensure incremental delivery
When to invoke: Automatically when user requests implementing ANY new feature, component, or functionality
Auto-invoke triggers:
- "implement X feature"
- "add Y functionality"
- "build Z component"
- "create new X"
- "develop X feature"
What this skill does NOT apply to:
- Bug fixes (< 10 lines changed)
- Simple content/text updates
- Documentation-only changes
- Configuration tweaks
π Research Foundation
This workflow is backed by industry research from Google, Microsoft, IEEE, and leading software engineering organizations:
Incremental Development (Scrum.org, 2024):
"Incremental delivery enables organizations to have greater visibility, decreases risks faster, delivers value sooner."
Continuous Integration (Harness.io, 2024):
"Small problems are easier to fix than big problems, and frequent commits make bugs easier to identify."
Code Review (Microsoft Research):
"Reviewing 200β400 lines of code at a time detects up to 90% of defects."
DRY Principle (MetriDev, 2024):
"Abstraction and modularity prevent code duplication through identifying common patterns for reuse."
For complete research citations and detailed procedures: See REFERENCE.md
π― Four-Phase Workflow
Overview
| Phase | Purpose | Time | Output | |-------|---------|------|--------| | 1. Gap Analysis | Search for existing code | 2-3 min | Reuse opportunities identified | | 2. Planning | Break into increments | 3-5 min | Implementation plan with todos | | 3. Review Gate | Agent quality review | 1-2 min | Feedback incorporated | | 4. Execution | Build incrementally | Varies | Feature complete, tests passing |
Phase 1: Gap Analysis (MANDATORY)
Purpose: Search for existing implementations BEFORE writing any code
Research: DRY principle - < 5% duplication target (SonarQube standard)
Quick Procedure:
# Search existing code
glob "**/*[keyword]*.tsx"
grep "[keyword]" --output_mode files_with_matches
# If found: Reuse or extend
# If not found: Create new with plan
Template: Use resources/gap-analysis-template.md
Detailed procedures: See REFERENCE.md β Phase 1
Verification:
- [ ] Searched for existing implementations?
- [ ] Identified reuse opportunities?
- [ ] Reported findings to user?
If similar code exists: Plan to extend/reuse β NO duplication
Phase 2: Implementation Planning (MANDATORY per CLAUDE.md)
Purpose: Break feature into incremental, testable steps
Research: Agile INVEST criteria - Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable
Required Elements:
- Objective - What & Why & Success criteria
- Technical Approach - Components, data flow, architecture
- Incremental Steps - 30-60 min each, < 100 LOC each
- Testing Strategy - Unit, integration, E2E, accessibility
- Performance - React.memo(), useMemo(), code splitting
- Rollback Plan - Feature flags, gradual rollout
Template: Use resources/implementation-plan-template.md
Detailed procedures: See REFERENCE.md β Phase 2
Create TodoWrite Tracking:
TodoWrite({
todos: [
{
content: "Step 1: Description",
activeForm: "Step 1: Active form",
status: "pending"
},
// ... all steps
]
})
Present plan to user β Get approval before proceeding
Phase 3: Review Gate (CONDITIONAL)
Purpose: Invoke specialized agents for code/design review
Research: Google code reviews < 4 hour median latency for fast feedback
Decision Matrix:
| Criteria | Threshold | Action | |----------|-----------|--------| | Lines of code | > 100 | Invoke critic-agent | | Security critical | Auth, payments | Always review | | User-facing UI | Any | Invoke ui-ux-designer | | Simple addition | < 50 lines | Skip review |
Invoke Agents in Parallel:
Use Task tool with multiple calls in ONE message:
1. Task(subagent_type="critic-agent") β Code quality
2. Task(subagent_type="ui-ux-designer") β UX/accessibility
After review: Incorporate feedback β Update plan β Update todos
Detailed procedures: See REFERENCE.md β Phase 3
Phase 4: Incremental Execution (MANDATORY)
Purpose: Implement feature in small, testable increments
Research: CI with frequent commits reduces integration issues (ResearchGate, 2024)
The Golden Rule: NEVER Break the Build
For EACH increment:
1. Mark todo as "in_progress"
2. Implement (keep changes < 100 lines)
3. Test (MANDATORY - all must pass):
npm run lint # Must pass
npm run type-check # Must pass
npm run test # Must pass
# Or use automation:
./scripts/validate-increment.sh # Linux/Mac
./scripts/validate-increment.bat # Windows
4. Mark todo as "completed" (immediately!)
5. Commit (if appropriate)
6. ONLY proceed if ALL tests pass
Template: Use resources/increment-checklist-template.md
Code Quality Rules:
- Component size: < 200 lines (React), < 250 lines (services)
- Data separation: Arrays >20 lines β data files
- Performance: React.memo() for animations, expensive components
- Imports: No file extensions, use path aliases (@/...)
- Accessibility: WCAG 2.1 AA compliance
File Size Monitoring:
# Check before editing
./scripts/check-file-size.sh [file-path]
# Thresholds:
# 150-200 lines β β οΈ Plan extraction
# 200-300 lines β π¨ Extract before adding
# 300+ lines β π MUST refactor first
Detailed procedures: See REFERENCE.md β Phase 4
Verification (per increment):
- [ ] Implemented ONLY this increment's scope?
- [ ] All tests passing?
- [ ] Todo marked completed?
π Complete Workflow Example
See EXAMPLES.md for:
- Complete auth system implementation (2.5 hours)
- Simple feature addition (5 minutes)
- Gap analysis preventing duplication
- Review gate catching security issues
π― Integration with CLAUDE.md Rules
This skill enforces ALL mandatory CLAUDE.md rules:
- β Search for existing code FIRST (Phase 1: Gap Analysis)
- β Plan before implementing (Phase 2: Implementation Planning)
- β Incremental implementation (Phase 4: Never break the build)
- β Test between increments (Phase 4: lint + type-check + test)
- β React.memo() for performance (Phase 4: Code quality rules)
- β Coordinate agents (Phase 3: Review gate)
- β TodoWrite tracking (Phase 2 + Phase 4)
- β Component size limits (Phase 4: File size monitoring)
π¨ Anti-Patterns This Skill Prevents
β What NOT to Do:
- Starting without gap analysis β Skill forces search first
- No implementation plan β Skill requires incremental plan
- Large commits β Skill enforces small increments
- Breaking the build β Skill tests after each increment
- Skipping code review β Skill invokes agents automatically
- Giant components (>300 lines) β Skill monitors file size
- Missing optimization β Skill checks React.memo(), etc.
π Verification Checklist (Before Completing)
Before marking feature complete, verify:
- [ ] Phase 1: Gap analysis completed?
- [ ] Phase 1: Existing code reused where possible?
- [ ] Phase 2: Implementation plan created?
- [ ] Phase 2: TodoWrite tracking set up?
- [ ] Phase 3: Agent review completed (if needed)?
- [ ] Phase 4: All increments implemented?
- [ ] Phase 4: All todos marked complete?
- [ ] Phase 4: All tests passing?
- [ ] Phase 4: No breaking changes introduced?
- [ ] Phase 4: Performance optimized?
- [ ] Phase 4: Accessibility verified (WCAG 2.1 AA)?
- [ ] Phase 4: Component sizes within limits?
If any answer is NO, STOP and complete that phase.
π Expected Outcomes
When this skill runs successfully:
- β No duplicate code - Gap analysis finds existing implementations
- β No redundancy - Reuses existing components/services
- β Well-planned - Clear roadmap with time estimates
- β Incrementally built - Small, testable steps
- β High quality - Agent reviews catch issues early
- β Well-tested - Tests run after each increment
- β Performant - Optimization applied automatically
- β Accessible - WCAG compliance checked
- β Maintainable - Component sizes controlled
- β Tracked - TodoWrite shows clear progress
π Success Metrics
Measure skill effectiveness:
- β Zero duplicate implementations in last 10 features
- β All features have implementation plans
- β No surprise breaking changes in commits
- β Test pass rate > 95% on first try
- β Code review feedback declining over time
- β Component sizes staying within limits
- β Feature delivery time predictable (within 20% of estimate)
For detailed metrics and KPIs: See REFERENCE.md β Success Metrics
π§ Automation Scripts
Validate increments:
# Linux/Mac
./scripts/validate-increment.sh
# Windows
./scripts/validate-increment.bat
Check file sizes:
./scripts/check-file-size.sh [file-path]
All scripts include:
- Research citations
- Clear pass/fail status
- Actionable recommendations
- Exit codes for CI/CD integration
π Supporting Documentation
For AI Assistants:
REFERENCE.md- Complete research citations, detailed procedures, troubleshootingEXAMPLES.md- Real-world workflow examples, before/after scenariosresources/gap-analysis-template.md- Gap analysis structureresources/implementation-plan-template.md- Complete planning templateresources/increment-checklist-template.md- Per-increment verification
Research Sources:
Academic:
- Google Research: "Modern Code Review" (9M reviews analyzed)
- Microsoft Research: "Expectations of Modern Code Review" (900+ devs surveyed)
- IEEE: "Continuous Integration Research" (meta-analysis)
- Scrum.org: "Incremental Delivery Research" (2024)
Industry:
- SonarQube: Code quality standards
- Atlassian: Trunk-based development
- Harness.io: CI/CD best practices
- MetriDev: Code duplication research
Books:
- "The DevOps Handbook" (Gene Kim)
- "Accelerate" (Nicole Forsgren)
- "Building Maintainable Software" (O'Reilly)
π‘ Tips for Maximum Effectiveness
- Trust the process - Let all 4 phases run
- Don't skip gap analysis - Even if you "know" nothing exists
- Break steps small - 30-45 min increments ideal
- Test frequently - After EVERY increment
- Use agent reviews - They catch issues you miss
- Keep todos updated - Reflects real progress
- Use automation - Scripts save time and reduce errors
π Integration with Other Skills
Works with:
- code-refactoring - Triggered when files exceed size limits
- ui-ux-audit - Invoked during Phase 3 for UI features
- devops-deployment - After Phase 4 for production deployment
- qa-testing - Referenced in Phase 2 for test strategy
Final Note
This skill is not optional. When user requests implementing any feature, this skill MUST run to enforce research-backed CI/CD workflow rules.
The goal: Ship high-quality features faster by preventing common mistakes through automation.
Research-backed. Industry-proven. Battle-tested.
Version History
- v1.0 (Oct 2025): Initial version based on CLAUDE.md
- v2.0 (Nov 2025): Added research citations, progressive disclosure, automation scripts, templates
For complete version history and detailed research: See REFERENCE.md