implement

CLIPPY IMPLEMENT Phase

Instructions for AI assistant. This skill performs implementation work. Activated by composer after investigation shows [READY].

---

Your Role

You implement the approved design. When all planned steps are complete, return to clippy:composer with completion signal.

Entry: Activated by clippy:composer after user chose "i" and [READY] confirmed.

Progressive Disclosure:

• For detailed before/during/after quality checks, see references/QUALITY_CHECKPOINTS.md
• Load clippy:investigate-design and read its references/READINESS.md — 8-item lifecycle checklist, P2 defensive criteria (needed for entry gate self-check)

---

ENTRY GATES (defense-in-depth)

BEFORE writing code:

• Re-run READY self-check: every [RESOLVED] step has all 8 lifecycle items + P2 evidence; no [PENDING] affecting design?

  • NO → CANNOT proceed. Emit 🔚 IMPLEMENTATION ABORTED with reason.
  • YES → Evidence: [Re-checked; all steps [RESOLVED] with evidence; no design [PENDING]]

• Design verified against architectural patterns (C1, C2, C3, P1, U1)?

  • NO → CANNOT proceed. Emit 🔚 IMPLEMENTATION ABORTED with reason.
  • YES → Evidence: [Design verified]

• Implementation details from tracker available for reference?

  • NO → CANNOT proceed. Emit 🔚 IMPLEMENTATION ABORTED with reason.
  • YES → Evidence: [Will reference IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS from tracker]

Review implementation strategy from DESIGN section before beginning. Use it as starting point; verify and adjust if needed.

Do NOT generate markdown reports or documentation files. Testing happens during VERIFY phase, not here.

---

IMPLEMENTATION WORKFLOW

Run to completion. Execute all planned steps from IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS. No intermediate menus. Return completion signal when done.

DISCOVERY IN IMPLEMENT (Minimal):

• Only small, unavoidable clarifications (e.g. exact identifier name at one call site)
• Major new scope or "what to build?" → STOP. Emit 🔚 IMPLEMENTATION ABORTED with reason.
• Am I adding major new scope or implementation steps not in tracker?
  • YES → CANNOT proceed. Emit 🔚 IMPLEMENTATION ABORTED with reason.
  • NO → Evidence: [Only clarifications; no new scope]

---

QUALITY CHECKPOINTS

BEFORE writing each code section:

• Checked tracker findings and design decisions for existing patterns/components to reuse?
  • NO → CANNOT proceed. Review tracker.
  • YES → Evidence: [Checked tracker]

FOR each code section being written:

• C1: Component boundaries, single responsibility, abstraction levels?
  • C1.6: Am I duplicating existing logic? → Reuse existing component.
• C2: Consistency, error handling, validation?
  • C2.1: Am I using existing error handling pattern? → Use existing.
  • C2.3: Am I duplicating validation logic? → Reuse existing.
• C3: Pattern and contract verification?
  • C3.3: Am I following existing patterns from tracker? If not, why?
• P1: Expensive operations optimized, efficient loading?
• U1: Fitness for purpose?
  • U1.1: Does this observable output contain what the consumer needs? Sentinel data?
  • U1.2: Data available elsewhere that should be surfaced here?
• Beyond checklist: Any other quality concerns from reading this code? (dependency misuse, operational issues, design fitness, domain-specific concerns)
• Per P2: When changing contract or identifier → identify all call sites and dependents; update and verify together.
• Violation found → Fix before continuing.

AFTER each implementation step:

• Code follows architectural patterns? NO → Fix.
• No violations introduced? NO → Fix.
• No duplication of existing patterns/logic (C1.6, C2.1, C3.3)? NO → Refactor to reuse.

---

SIGNALS

When all planned steps are done:

🔚 IMPLEMENT PHASE COMPLETE
Files Modified: [list]
[Summary of changes made]
Returning to composer for menu

When entry gate fails or major new scope discovered:

🔚 IMPLEMENTATION ABORTED
Reason: [readiness check failed / major new scope discovered: description]
Returning to composer → re-enter INVESTIGATE & DESIGN

When user interrupts with free-form input: Pause implementation. Respond to user input within protocol context. Show post-response options: resume implementation or return to investigation. If resuming, continue from where paused.

---

Last Updated: April 2026 (v2.2 - Augmentation: beyond-checklist prompt in quality checkpoints. U1 added in v2.1. Previous: v2.0.)