mcpbeat

Feature Dev

secondsky/feature-dev

Automate 7-phase feature development with specialized agents (code-explorer, code-architect, code-reviewer). Use for multi-file features, architectural decisions, or encountering ambiguous requirements, integration patterns, design approach errors.

2k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
202
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/secondsky/claude-skills --skill feature-dev

The instruction itself

28 sections, as written by the author

Feature Development Workflow

A comprehensive, structured workflow for feature development with specialized agents for codebase exploration, architecture design, and quality review.

Quick Start

Launch the guided feature development workflow:

/feature-dev Add user authentication with OAuth

Or interactively:

/feature-dev

The workflow will guide you through 7 distinct phases automatically.

Overview

Building features requires more than just writing code. This skill provides a systematic approach that:

  • Understands the codebase before making changes
  • Asks clarifying questions to resolve ambiguities
  • Designs thoughtfully with multiple architecture options
  • Reviews for quality after implementation

The 7-Phase Workflow

Phase 1: Discovery

Goal: Understand what needs to be built

  • Clarifies unclear feature requests
  • Identifies problem, constraints, and requirements
  • Summarizes understanding and confirms with user

Example:

User: /feature-dev Add caching
Agent: Let me understand what you need...
       - What should be cached? (API responses, computed values, etc.)
       - What are your performance requirements?
       - Do you have a preferred caching solution?

Phase 2: Codebase Exploration

Goal: Understand relevant existing code and patterns

  • Launches 2-3 code-explorer agents in parallel
  • Explores similar features, architecture, UI patterns
  • Reads all identified files for deep understanding
  • Presents comprehensive summary of findings

Agents launched:

  • "Find features similar to [feature] and trace implementation"
  • "Map the architecture and abstractions for [area]"
  • "Analyze current implementation of [related feature]"

Example output:

Found similar features:
- User authentication (src/auth/): Uses JWT tokens, middleware pattern
- Session management (src/session/): Redis-backed, 24hr expiry

Key files:
- src/auth/AuthService.ts:45 - Core authentication logic
- src/middleware/authMiddleware.ts:12 - Request authentication

Phase 3: Clarifying Questions

Goal: Fill in gaps and resolve all ambiguities

  • Reviews codebase findings and feature request
  • Identifies underspecified aspects (edge cases, error handling, integration points)
  • Presents organized list of questions
  • Waits for answers before proceeding

Example:

Before designing, I need to clarify:

1. OAuth provider: Which providers? (Google, GitHub, custom?)
2. User data: Store OAuth tokens or just profile?
3. Existing auth: Replace or add alongside current auth?
4. Sessions: Integrate with existing session management?
5. Error handling: How to handle OAuth failures?

Critical: Ensures nothing is ambiguous before design begins.

Phase 4: Architecture Design

Goal: Design multiple implementation approaches

  • Launches 2-3 code-architect agents with different focuses:
  • Minimal changes: Smallest change, maximum reuse
  • Clean architecture: Maintainability, elegant abstractions
  • Pragmatic balance: Speed + quality
  • Presents comparison with trade-offs and recommendation
  • Asks which approach to use

Example output:

Approach 1: Minimal Changes
- Extend existing AuthService with OAuth methods
Pros: Fast, low risk
Cons: Couples OAuth to existing auth

Approach 2: Clean Architecture
- New OAuthService with dedicated interface
Pros: Clean separation, testable
Cons: More files, more refactoring

Approach 3: Pragmatic Balance
- New OAuthProvider abstraction
Pros: Balanced complexity and cleanliness
Cons: Some coupling remains

Recommendation: Approach 3 - clean boundaries without excessive refactoring

Phase 5: Implementation

Goal: Build the feature

  • Waits for explicit approval before starting
  • Reads all relevant files from previous phases
  • Implements following chosen architecture
  • Follows codebase conventions strictly
  • Updates todos to track progress

Phase 6: Quality Review

Goal: Ensure code is simple, DRY, elegant, and functionally correct

  • Launches 3 code-reviewer agents in parallel:
  • Simplicity/DRY/Elegance: Code quality
  • Bugs/Correctness: Functional correctness
  • Conventions/Abstractions: Project standards
  • Consolidates findings and identifies high severity issues
  • Asks what to do: Fix now, fix later, or proceed as-is

Example output:

High Priority Issues:
1. Missing error handling in OAuth callback (src/auth/oauth.ts:67)
2. Memory leak: OAuth state not cleaned up (src/auth/oauth.ts:89)

Medium Priority:
1. Could simplify token refresh logic (src/auth/oauth.ts:120)

What would you like to do?

Phase 7: Summary

Goal: Document what was accomplished

  • Marks all todos complete
  • Summarizes what was built, key decisions, files modified
  • Suggests next steps

Specialized Agents

code-explorer

Purpose: Deeply analyzes existing codebase features by tracing execution paths

Focus:

  • Entry points and call chains
  • Data flow and transformations
  • Architecture layers and patterns
  • Implementation details

Output:

  • Entry points with file:line references
  • Step-by-step execution flow
  • Key components and responsibilities
  • Essential files to read

Triggered: Automatically in Phase 2, or manually

code-architect

Purpose: Designs feature architectures and implementation blueprints

Focus:

  • Codebase pattern analysis
  • Architecture decisions
  • Component design
  • Implementation roadmap

Output:

  • Patterns and conventions found
  • Architecture decision with rationale
  • Complete component design
  • Implementation map with build sequence

Triggered: Automatically in Phase 4, or manually

code-reviewer

Purpose: Reviews code for bugs, quality issues, and project conventions

Focus:

  • Project guideline compliance (CLAUDE.md)
  • Bug detection
  • Code quality issues
  • Confidence-based filtering (≥80% confidence only)

Output:

  • Critical issues (confidence 75-100)
  • Important issues (confidence 50-74)
  • Specific fixes with file:line references

Triggered: Automatically in Phase 6, or manually

Usage Patterns

/feature-dev Add rate limiting to API endpoints

Manual agent invocation

Explore a feature:

"Launch code-explorer to trace how authentication works"

Design architecture:

"Launch code-architect to design the caching layer"

Review code:

"Launch code-reviewer to check my recent changes"

When to Use

Use for:

  • New features that touch multiple files
  • Features requiring architectural decisions
  • Complex integrations with existing code
  • Features where requirements are somewhat unclear

Don't use for:

  • Single-line bug fixes
  • Trivial changes
  • Well-defined simple tasks
  • Urgent hotfixes

Best Practices

  • Use the full workflow for complex features: The 7 phases ensure thorough planning
  • Answer clarifying questions thoughtfully: Phase 3 prevents future confusion
  • Choose architecture deliberately: Phase 4 gives options for a reason
  • Don't skip code review: Phase 6 catches issues before production
  • Read the suggested files: Phase 2 identifies key files—read them for context

Common Issues

Agents take too long

Cause: Normal for large codebases

Solution: Agents run in parallel when possible. Thoroughness pays off in better understanding.

Too many clarifying questions

Cause: Feature request too vague

Solution: Be more specific in initial request. Provide context about constraints upfront.

Architecture options overwhelming

Cause: Multiple valid approaches presented

Solution: Trust the recommendation (based on codebase analysis). Pick pragmatic option when in doubt.

Requirements

  • Claude Code installed
  • Git repository (for code review)
  • Existing codebase (workflow learns from existing patterns)

Tips

  • Be specific in feature request: More detail = fewer clarifying questions
  • Trust the process: Each phase builds on the previous one
  • Review agent outputs: Agents provide valuable codebase insights
  • Don't skip phases: Each phase serves a purpose
  • Use for learning: Exploration phase teaches you about your own codebase

Verification Checklist

After using the workflow:

  • [ ] All 7 phases completed successfully
  • [ ] Clarifying questions answered in Phase 3
  • [ ] Architecture approach selected in Phase 4
  • [ ] Implementation approved before Phase 5 started
  • [ ] Code review findings addressed in Phase 6
  • [ ] Summary generated with next steps in Phase 7
  • [ ] Feature works as expected
  • [ ] Code follows project conventions

References

For detailed workflow documentation, see README.md

For agent specifications, see:

  • agents/code-explorer.md
  • agents/code-architect.md
  • agents/code-reviewer.md

For slash command implementation, see commands/feature-dev.md

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take secondsky/feature-dev from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.