Skip to content
Back to skills

Validate Feature Fit

ASecurity

Validate whether a feature request fits the existing codebase — check for duplicates, contradictions, scope creep, and architectural misfit

  • 10 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added June 5, 2026
ai-agentsgobashgit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 12, 2026

npx -y skills add event4u-app/agent-config --skill validate-feature-fit --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Validate Feature Fit?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Validate Feature Fit
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/event4u-app-validate-feature-fit/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/event4u-app-validate-feature-fit)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
model_tier: medium
name: "validate-feature-fit"
description: "Validate whether a feature request fits the existing codebase — check for duplicates, contradictions, scope creep, and architectural misfit"
domain: quality
scope:
  write: []
  verification_reason: "execution.handler is internal, so this skill spawns no subprocess — writes happen through the agent's declared allowed_tools. No command can prove a scope the skill never executes."
execution:
  type: assisted
  handler: internal
  allowed_tools: []
workspaces:
  - engineering
packs:
  - engineering-base
---

# Validate Feature Fit

## When to use

- The `improve-before-implement` rule detected a potential misfit
- User explicitly asks to validate a feature idea before implementing
- A feature request seems to overlap with existing functionality
- A requested approach contradicts established patterns

## Procedure

### 1. Understand the request

Read the feature description / user message. Extract:
- **Goal**: What should be achieved?
- **Scope**: What files/modules are affected?
- **Approach**: How does the user want it done?

### 2. Check for duplicates

Search the codebase for existing functionality that covers (partially or fully) the same goal:
- Services with similar names or methods
- Controllers handling similar routes
- Models with similar scopes or relations
- Existing tests covering similar behavior

**If duplicate found** → report with file references, suggest extending vs. duplicating.

### 3. Check for contradictions

Verify the request doesn't conflict with:
- Existing module boundaries (does it cross module lines?)
- Established patterns (does it introduce a new pattern where one exists?)
- Naming conventions (does it use different naming than the codebase?)
- Data flow (does it bypass existing services or repositories?)
- **Product rules and domain invariants** — pull active rules via the
  shared abstraction (see
  [`memory-access`](../../guidelines/agent-infra/memory-access.md)):

  ```bash
  agent-config memory:lookup \
    --types product-rules,domain-invariants \
    --key <affected domain> --key <affected path> \
    --limit 5
  ```

  A product rule is an intentional business constraint
  (e.g., "free plan caps at 3 users"); the feature must either respect
  it or explicitly propose to retire it. Cite the matching `id:` in
  the findings. Schema:
  [`engineering-memory-data-format`](../../guidelines/agent-infra/engineering-memory-data-format.md).

**If contradiction found** → show the existing pattern, explain why it matters.

### 4. Check for scope creep

Evaluate if the request is:
- Bigger than it appears (hidden complexity, many affected files)
- Under-specified (missing error handling, edge cases, validation)
- Over-engineered (complex solution for simple problem)

**If scope concern** → quantify the impact (est. files, est. complexity).

### 5. Present findings

Format as a clear, concise summary:

```
## Feature Fit Analysis: [Feature Name]

### ✅ Fits well
- [What aligns with the codebase]

### ⚠️ Concerns
- [Concern 1 — with file reference]
- [Concern 2 — with evidence]

### Recommendation
> 1. Proceed as-is
> 2. Adjust approach — [brief suggestion]
> 3. Discuss further
```

## Output format

1. Always close with a numbered options block — the user must be able to reply with a single digit.
2. Each option is one line: action verb + scope + reversibility hint (e.g., "1. Drop the duplicate — keep existing X (reversible)").
3. Never present more than 5 options; if more exist, group them under "other" with a follow-up question.

## Gotchas

- Don't spend more than 2 minutes on this analysis — quick scan, not deep audit
- Don't block work — if no clear issues found, say "looks good" and proceed
- Don't challenge every request — only when there's actual evidence of misfit
- Don't nitpick — focus on structural/architectural concerns, not style

## Do NOT

- Do NOT refuse to implement after the user made their choice
- Do NOT repeat concerns the user already addressed
- Do NOT make this analysis visible when there are no concerns
- Do NOT run this on bug fixes, config changes, or trivial tasks
- Do NOT use this as a reason to delay work

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.