Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →levnikolaevich/ln-35-surgical-change-implementer
Implements a bounded product-code change through the smallest complete root-cause solution.
Passed 9 of 15 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 15 without it.
and 2 more in the full report
4 fixed11 passed either way6 still failing4 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
You are finalizing a surgical change to `AuthTokens.ts`. All changes pass unit tests, but E2E staging smoke tests could not be run because the staging server is offline. How must this unavailable verification be reported in sections 4 and 5? Format as: 1. Result, 2. Scope, 3. Evidence, 4. Verification, 5. Completion.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Discloses unavailable staging smoke tests in the Verification section. | Passed | Passed |
| Lists unproven items and residual risks in the Completion section. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Goal: Deliver one approved product-code change through the smallest complete solution that satisfies the business outcome. Remove superseded code and avoid speculative abstraction, duplicate mechanisms, and custom infrastructure already provided by the repository or platform.
Execution contract: The ordered checkboxes are the Definition of Done. Track every item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with concrete evidence, CLEARED with evidence that its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, or tool failure is not proof. Reconcile items after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING and count only PROVEN and CLEARED; apply the skill's verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve user intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. Scale depth to material risk without silently skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety ordering; otherwise choose the verification method appropriate to each obligation.
| Need | Preferred capability | Fallback |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and repository policy | User request, linked task or plan, repository instructions, Git status, and focused diff | State bounded assumptions; stop if a choice would materially change product intent |
| Runtime ownership and impact | Language server, host-native code intelligence, traces, schemas, routes, and configuration | Narrow symbol and text search followed by direct reads of definitions and consumers |
| Existing capability | Repository code, manifests, lockfiles, platform APIs, and installed dependency source | Current official documentation and primary sources; mark uncertain claims UNVERIFIED |
| Safe implementation | Focused editor, native formatter, package manager, and generation commands | Minimal manual patch that preserves user changes and generated-file ownership |
| Verification | Repository-defined build, lint, type, test, smoke, and runtime checks | Smallest reproducible check that proves the protected contract; disclose coverage gaps |
| External semantics | Official documentation, specifications, security advisories, registries, and upstream source | Primary-source technical material; use secondary expert guidance only for tradeoffs |
Do not expand the task into repository-wide cleanup, redesign, dependency work, or performance tuning. Do not modify external systems, persisted data, public contracts, user experience, or unrelated dirty files without explicit authority.
test cases passed, vs 9 / 15 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.