SO

source-driven-development

Grounds code changes in official documentation and local repository truth to ensure consistency.

Install

mkdir -p .claude/skills/source-driven-development && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/15265" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/source-driven-development && rm skill.zip

Installs to .claude/skills/source-driven-development

Activation

This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.

Grounds implementation decisions in authoritative sources. Use when framework behavior, tool syntax, or workflow guidance must be verified before editing oviney/blog.
166 chars✓ has a “when” trigger
Intermediate

Key capabilities

  • Verify framework behavior before editing documentation
  • Reconcile official guidance with repo-local commands
  • Update workflow documentation for other agents
  • Resolve whether a pattern is current or deprecated
  • Identify conflicts between upstream docs and repo practice

How it works

The skill verifies implementation decisions by combining official upstream documentation with repo-local truth, ensuring recommendations are both source-backed and repo-ratified.

Inputs & outputs

You give it
Proposed implementation decision or documentation update
You get back
Source-backed and repo-ratified recommendation

When to use source-driven-development

  • Verify framework behavior
  • Reconcile documentation with actual code
  • Review workflow documentation
  • Update repository command guidance

About this skill

Source-Driven Development

Overview

Verify the source before you write the change. For oviney/blog, that means combining official upstream documentation with repo-local truth such as CLAUDE.md, package.json, playwright.config.ts, and the existing skill/command layer. Official docs tell you what a tool supports; the repo tells you which subset this project actually uses.

When to Use

  • Updating Jekyll, Liquid, Playwright, Lighthouse, Pa11y, or GitHub Actions guidance
  • Creating or revising skill docs that point agents to concrete commands
  • Writing reusable examples that other agents will copy
  • Resolving whether a pattern is current, deprecated, or unsupported in this repo
  • Reviewing docs that were likely written from memory rather than verified sources

The Rule: Source-Backed, Repo-Ratified

A recommendation is only safe when both checks pass:

  1. Source-backed — supported by official docs or a first-party reference
  2. Repo-ratified — consistent with this repo's actual commands, files, and protected boundaries

If upstream docs suggest a command the repo does not use, prefer the repo.

Verification Workflow

Step 1: Detect the Local Stack

Read the repo files that define the real environment:

- Gemfile / README / CLAUDE.md for Jekyll workflow
- package.json for executable npm scripts
- playwright.config.ts for browser test behavior
- lighthouserc.json for performance thresholds
- SECURITY.md for security posture

State the result explicitly before documenting anything:

STACK DETECTED:
- Jekyll site validated with `bundle exec jekyll build`
- Playwright tests via `npm run test:playwright`
- Accessibility checks via `npm run test:a11y`
- Lighthouse checks via `npm run test:lighthouse`
- Security audit via `npm run test:security`

Step 2: Fetch the Smallest Authoritative Source

Use the exact upstream page that governs the change:

AreaPreferred source
Jekyll / Liquidjekyllrb.com or shopify.github.io/liquid
Playwrightplaywright.dev
Lighthouse / LHCIgithub.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse-ci or developer.chrome.com
Pa11ypa11y.org / GitHub project docs
GitHub Actionsdocs.github.com

Avoid tutorial blogs and generic AI summaries as primary sources.

Step 3: Reconcile with Repo Constraints

Ask the repo-specific questions that generic docs cannot answer:

  • Is the command present in package.json?
  • Does the repo already encode a preferred workflow in CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or the relevant skill file?
  • Does the change cross a protected or governance surface?
  • Does the repo intentionally omit a tool (for example generic lint or typecheck defaults)?

Step 4: Write the Recommendation

Prefer wording like this:

Official docs support X.
This repo implements it via Y.
Therefore the doc should tell agents to run Z.

Conflict Handling

Surface conflicts instead of silently choosing one side:

CONFLICT DETECTED:
Upstream examples use a generic build command,
but oviney/blog validates changes with `bundle exec jekyll build`.

Decision:
Keep the repo command in local docs and cite the upstream source only for
behavior, not for the command wrapper.

Citation Rules for This Repo

  • Cite upstream sources when they justify framework behavior or terminology
  • Cite local files when they justify workflow, commands, paths, or boundaries
  • If something is unverified, say so plainly rather than inventing certainty
  • Do not turn unsupported tooling into a required default

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"The upstream README is enough"Not for this repo. Local command wrappers and scope rules matter just as much.
"This command is probably standard"Standard elsewhere does not mean valid here. Check package.json.
"It is only an example"Agents copy examples literally. One wrong example becomes repeated bad output.
"I know this tool from memory"Version drift and repo-specific wrappers make memory unreliable.

Red Flags

  • Generic commands appear without proof from local files
  • A doc cites upstream examples but ignores repo rules
  • The recommendation assumes tools the repo does not install or run
  • The writer cannot name the local file that validates the command
  • Conflicts between upstream docs and repo practice are hidden

Verification

After writing or updating a source-driven doc:

  • The repo files defining the command or workflow were read first
  • The upstream reference is first-party and specific to the feature
  • Every recommended command exists in this repo
  • No unsupported default tooling was introduced
  • Repo-specific constraints override generic examples where needed
  • Any unresolved gaps are explicitly marked as unverified

Related Files

When not to use it

  • When using tutorial blogs or generic AI summaries as primary sources
  • When assuming a command is standard without checking package.json
  • When ignoring repo-specific wrappers and scope rules

Limitations

  • A recommendation is only safe when both source-backed and repo-ratified checks pass
  • If upstream docs suggest a command the repo does not use, prefer the repo
  • Conflicts between upstream docs and repo practice must be surfaced

How it compares

This skill explicitly reconciles official documentation with local repository configurations and commands, ensuring that recommendations are practical and consistent with the project's actual environment, unlike relying solely on generic do

Compared to similar skills

source-driven-development side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.

SkillInstallsUpdatedSafetyDifficulty
source-driven-development (this skill)03moNo flagsIntermediate
error-handling-guide04moNo flagsIntermediate
dependency-upgrade265moReviewIntermediate
codex-skill125moReviewAdvanced

Try saying

Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.

You might also like

error-handling-guide

komunite

Design and document a error handling guide with structured process, quality checks, and system integration

00

dependency-upgrade

wshobson

Manage major dependency version upgrades with compatibility analysis, staged rollout, and comprehensive testing. Use when upgrading framework versions, updating major dependencies, or managing breaking changes in libraries.

26240

codex-skill

feiskyer

Use when user asks to leverage codex, gpt-5, or gpt-5.1 to implement something (usually implement a plan or feature designed by Claude). Provides non-interactive automation mode for hands-off task execution without approval prompts.

12110

typescript

lobehub

TypeScript code style and optimization guidelines. Use when writing TypeScript code (.ts, .tsx, .mts files), reviewing code quality, or implementing type-safe patterns. Triggers on TypeScript development, type safety questions, or code style discussions.

2877

markdown-to-html

github

Convert Markdown files to HTML similar to `marked.js`, `pandoc`, `gomarkdown/markdown`, or similar tools; or writing custom script to convert markdown to html and/or working on web template systems like `jekyll/jekyll`, `gohugoio/hugo`, or similar web templating systems that utilize markdown documents, converting them to html. Use when asked to "convert markdown to html", "transform md to html", "render markdown", "generate html from markdown", or when working with .md files and/or web a templating system that converts markdown to HTML output. Supports CLI and Node.js workflows with GFM, CommonMark, and standard Markdown flavors.

1662

typescript-skills

llama-farm

Shared TypeScript best practices for Designer and Electron subsystems.

323

Search skills

Search the agent skills registry