mstar-coding-behavior
/mstar-coding-behavior
Use for non-trivial implementation, debugging, refactoring or code review in any project: requirement drift, speculative complexity, agent-facing interfaces. Not workflow or role selection.
- Author
- btspoony ↗
- Repository
- mstar-harness ↗
- Licence
- MIT
- Last repository change
- 28.10.2026
Assessment and security
- Files in this package
- 1
- Scripts
- 0
- HTML comments
- 0
- URLs in SKILL.md
- 0
No signals detected. Repository changed on 28.10.2026, without references to retired models or APIs.
MIT, open: use and modify while retaining author attribution.
What it does and when to use it
Use for non-trivial implementation, debugging, refactoring or code review in any project: requirement drift, speculative complexity, agent-facing interfaces. Not workflow or role selection.
Original author description
Use for non-trivial implementation, debugging, refactoring or code review in any project: requirement drift, speculative complexity, agent-facing interfaces. Not workflow or role selection.
How it works
- Workflow
- Decision Rules
- Evidence
- References
SKILL.md preview
--- name: mstar-coding-behavior description: "Use for non-trivial implementation, debugging, refactoring or code review in any project: requirement drift, speculative complexity, agent-facing interfaces. Not workflow or role selection." --- # Coding Behavior Start from the user's original outcome, not from the machinery already built. ## Workflow 1. **Plan from the need.** Identify the requested outcome, current acceptance criteria, non-goals, and actual constraints. Use first principles to separate what must be true from inherited implementation choices. State material assumptions; resolve questions from available evidence before asking for missing decisions. 2. **Read the affected flow.** Inspect the changed code, direct contracts, nearby behavior tests, and relevant project guidance. Before editing, map affected callers, tests, fixtures, configuration, and exports; identify data that could be destroyed or exposed and consumers that could break. Check API signatures against source or documentation. Existing artifacts are evidence, not additional requirements. 3. **Do the smallest complete change.** Choose the first fully working option in the reuse ladder below. Fix the root cause at the narrowest responsible point; finish affected consumers, tests, fixtures, configuration, exports, and documentation, removing paths made obsolete by the change. Preserve unrelated work and avoid opportunistic cleanup. 4. **Check the outcome.** Within the authorized verification scope, exercise the affected consumer behavior and meaningful boundaries. For a bug, use the reported failure or a minimal reproduction to guide diagnosis; change one causal factor at a time. Reuse unaffected evidence rather than rerunning unrelated checks. 5. **Act on evidence.** Compare results with acceptance criteria, diagnose any remaining failure, and refine only what is necessary. Assess review feedback against actual contracts and behavior; apply justified fixes or explain disagreement with evidence. Stop when the requested outcome is evidenced. ## Decision Rules ### Requirement-first simplicity - Apply **Occam's razor and YAGNI**: prefer fewer concepts, moving parts, and assumptions that fully satisfy current requirements. Small does not mean incomplete, temporary, symptom-only, or cleverly compressed; a one-liner that needs decoding is not simpler. Between equally simple options, choose the one correct at the affected boundaries. - Do not grow a design from existing layers just because they exist. Keep useful patterns, but replace a bad abstraction when the requested outcome requires it; do not preserve it solely for consistency. - Never add imagined future features, extension frameworks, configuration knobs, compatibility wrappers, or speculative error handling. Each addition must answer a current requirement or a demonstrated risk in a supported workflow. Keep values in their existing form unless the contract requires conversion; do not add layers or wrappers merely to reshape them. - Do not add validation, confirmation, or preflight gates for unsupported or hypothetical conditions. Retain trust-boundary validation, required authorization, security, data-loss prevention, accessibility, necessary hardware calibration, and requested behavior. Moving or merging code preserves its validation and error handling. - Take the **first option that fully works**, not the shortest incomplete diff: 1. Reuse a valid project helper, component, service, or pattern as surrounding code does; a suitable house component takes precedence over a native replacement. 2. Use a standard-library or platform feature when no suitable house solution exists. 3. Use an installed dependency; check its documentation and types before assuming it lacks the capability. 4. Otherwise write the minimum readable direct solution. Add an established, well-maintained library only when it reduces overall complexity or improves reliability; check maintenance and size, and state the need in one sentence, not a new package for a few lines. - Centralize and reuse sources of truth for prompts, contracts, and data instead of copying them; do not invent an abstraction framework to do so. - Mark a deliberate bounded shortcut with `simplify:` and its ceiling/upgrade path. For an unavoidable workaround, explain why, label it `simplify:` or `temporary`, and record its removal path in the existing plan/status artifact before claiming completion. Temporary markers must cite that artifact. ### Agent-facing products Treat ordinary agent mistakes as expected usage. Prioritize **discoverability, fault tolerance, and information fidelity**: - Make commands, parameters, payload shapes, and recovery paths discoverable from help and errors. Verify what callers actually see: concrete invocations, parameters, and payload fields, not internal type names or generic capability claims. An undocumented capability is not a usable interface. Do not invent input modes unsupported by current requirements. - Require only genuinely necessary input. Derive available facts and use safe defaults; ask for explicit target or authority when it cannot safely be inferred. - Keep agent-authored content and mutations revisable through supported public operations. Avoid one-way restrictions or hidden manual repair; protect truly irreversible actions without making routine edits irreversible. - Refusals must name the actual cause and exact supported recovery, not a generic block or an undocumented escape. When authority or an external prerequisite is missing, identify it honestly rather than inventing a bypass. - Preserve real errors, distinctions, and partial outcomes. Never swallow or normalize away failures, fabricate success, or silently substitute a fallback that changes the meaning of the result. ### Surgical diagnosis and review - Trace each changed region to the request, acceptance criteria, or a necessary integration fix. Follow callers only far enough to resolve the concrete affected behavior; do not restart repository-wide investigation. - Read complete errors and relevant traces. Use observations to form a falsifiable cause, not a guessed patch. If reproduction is unavailable, disclose that limit and obtain the smallest missing evidence. - Do not suppress an exception or special-case the failing input to make symptoms disappear. Correct the responsible invariant or flow and cover the demonstrated regression. - Review suggestions are technical input, not automatic authorization. Prioritize correctness, security, and data loss; reject unrelated feature requests and ungrounded style changes rather than expanding scope. ## Evidence Completion means the requested behavior meets its acceptance criteria, supported by the checks actually performed: - For executable changes, retain the smallest relevant runnable check protecting consumer-visible behavior or a meaningful invariant. For bugs, demonstrate the regression and its correction when the available evidence and authorized checks permit. - Test behavior, not source shape, prompt wording, forwarding echoes, or duplicated producer checks. Do not manufacture tests to satisfy a template. - For non-executable policy changes, use scoped static or before/after evidence with observable criteria. Static lint does not establish model compliance or runtime behavior. - Report the changed outcome and actual check commands/results concisely, including failures; never imply an unrun check passed. In the required report, use one or two closing lines for intentionally skipped work, material unverified behavior, and its user-facing risk. Separate observation from inference; a missing prerequisite is not a successful result. ## References Standalone use requires no other Morning Star skill. Only when working under Morning Star lifecycle or assignments, follow the existing authorities: - `mstar-harness-core` — lifecycle, safeguards, gates, and Done ownership. - `mstar-roles` — identity and Assignment skill-preset selection. - `mstar-branch-worktree` / `mstar-dispatch-gates` — assigned checkout and delegation authority when applicable. This skill does not waive those contracts, grant dispatch permission, or authorize Done.
Versions
The database has no other skills named mstar-coding-behavior.
Database snapshot: 13.11.2026 · package version b9c7f21b29fc (SHA-256 digest of the entire package)
Downloads in the last 30 days: 0 · ranking
Report a problem with this skill: harmful content, incorrect descriptions or an author’s removal request.
Similar skills
- 86coding
Always use when working with code, including planning changes, implementing, debugging, reviewing and refactoring. - 90mstar-use-cli
Use when choosing, running or interpreting `mstar`/`mstar-harness` CLI commands: family selection, semantic preconditions (control root, cwd, identity, revision/token), exit codes and refusal codes. - 90mstar-pr-loop
Opt-in skill loaded when the user explicitly asks for a review → fix loop on an existing ready PR, or when iteration Phase 1 selects it as that iteration's `pr_merge_policy: reviewed-auto` review path. It never activates for routine review requests or on its own initiative. - 100antislop
Review or prevent unnecessary abstraction, speculative flexibility, and maintenance problems in agent-written code. Use when implementing, refactoring, or reviewing code; preserve project conventions and required behavior. - 100rust-specialist
Rust specialist for implementation, review, refactoring, safety, cross-platform behavior, async/process lifecycles, and measured performance. Use for Rust project work. - 86coding-workflow
Use for implementing features, fixing bugs and refactoring with existing code, native capabilities, measured tests and review. Keep the change as small as the real contract allows.