name: openlore-implement-story description: Implement a story on a brownfield codebase using openlore structural context. Runs orient + risk check before coding, validates against specs, enforces a test gate before drift check. license: MIT compatibility: openlore MCP server user-invocable: true allowed-tools: - ask_followup_question - use_mcp_tool - read_file - write_file - str_replace_based_edit - replace_in_file - run_command - openlore-execute-refactor
openlore: Implement Story
When to use this skill
Trigger this skill when the user asks to implement a story or task on a codebase that has openlore analysis available, with phrasings like:
- "implement story X"
- "work on task Y"
- "start implementing this feature"
- explicit command
/openlore-implement-story
Prerequisite: openlore analysis must exist (openlore analyze has been run).
If orient returns "error": "no cache" → run analyze_codebase first, then retry.
Step 1 — Read the story and risk context
Read the story file. Extract:
$STORY_TITLE,$AC(acceptance criteria),$PROJECT_ROOT$RISK_CONTEXT— therisk_contextsection if present (pre-filled by Architect Agent)
| Situation | Approach |
|---|---|
risk_context present, risk 🟢 < 40 |
Skip to Step 3 — use insertion point from context |
risk_context present, risk 🟡 40–69 |
Run Step 2 impact check, then proceed |
risk_context present, risk 🔴 ≥ 70 |
Stop — a blocking refactor story must be resolved first |
risk_context absent |
Run the full Step 2 orientation |
Step 2 — Orient and assess risk
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>orient</tool_name>
<arguments>{
"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT",
"task": "$STORY_TITLE",
"limit": 7
}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
For the top 2 functions returned, get minimal context first (callers, callees, body, test coverage):
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>get_minimal_context</tool_name>
<arguments>{"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT", "functionName": "$FUNCTION_NAME"}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
What to read before proceeding:
function.riskLevel—"high"= fanIn ≥ 30 or fanOut ≥ 15; tool expanded lists to 24 entries — all are blast-radius members.callers[*].callType— all"awaited"= async interface frozen; signature change breaks every caller silently in JS. Mixed = looser coupling.callees[*].isExternal: true— external boundary; new paths may pass mocked tests but fail in production.testedBy[*].confidence—"called"= direct test (strong)."imported"only =vi.mock()can neutralize; treat as untested.
If riskLevel is "high" or any callee is external, also check the cluster:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>get_cluster</tool_name>
<arguments>{"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT", "functionName": "$FUNCTION_NAME"}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
clusterDensity < 0.05→ isolated, proceedclusterDensity 0.05–0.15→ checkinternalCallGraphfor transitively dependent functionsclusterDensity > 0.15→ dense cluster; coordinate scope with user first
Then check risk:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>analyze_impact</tool_name>
<arguments>{
"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT",
"symbol": "$FUNCTION_NAME",
"depth": 2
}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
If any function has riskScore ≥ 70: stop.
Do not implement. Run /openlore-execute-refactor on the blocking function first, or create a
blocking refactor task and return to this story once the risk is resolved.
Step 2.5 — Stack inventory (conditional)
Based on the story title and orient results, call the relevant inventory tool(s) before reading any source file. Skip if the story clearly involves none of these areas.
| Story involves | Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Data models / ORM / database / tables | get_schema_inventory |
See existing tables and fields — don't re-invent what already exists |
| HTTP routes / API / endpoints | get_route_inventory |
See existing routes before adding new ones |
| Config / env vars / secrets | get_env_vars |
Identify which vars are required vs have defaults |
| UI components | get_ui_components |
See existing component props and framework |
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>get_schema_inventory</tool_name>
<arguments>{"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT"}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
Use the results to ground the implementation in existing schemas/routes — the plan cannot contradict what already exists.
Step 3 — Check the spec
First, verify that OpenSpec specs exist:
ls $PROJECT_ROOT/openspec/specs/ 2>/dev/null | wc -l
If 0 specs found:
No OpenSpec specs exist yet.
search_specswill return empty results andcheck_spec_drift(Step 7) will flag everything as uncovered.Recommended: run
/openlore-generateafter this story to create a spec baseline. You only need to do this once.Continuing with structural analysis only.
Skip the search_specs call and go to Step 4.
If specs exist:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>search_specs</tool_name>
<arguments>{
"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT",
"query": "$STORY_TITLE",
"limit": 5
}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
If relevant requirements are found, read the domain spec before writing any code. Note any constraints that apply.
Step 3.5 — Audit spec coverage of the target domain
Run a parity audit to check if the domain you're about to touch has spec gaps.
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>audit_spec_coverage</tool_name>
<arguments>{"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT"}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
From the result, check:
staleDomains— if the target domain appears here, its spec is outdated. Recommend runningopenlore generate --domains $DOMAINbefore implementing.hubGaps— uncovered hub functions. If the feature touches one of these, add it to the adversarial check in Step 4b (high blast radius + no spec = risk).
If both are clean, continue to Step 4 without action.
Step 4 — Find the insertion point
Use insertion_points from risk_context if present. Otherwise:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>suggest_insertion_points</tool_name>
<arguments>{
"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT",
"description": "$STORY_TITLE",
"limit": 5
}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
Read the skeleton of the target file:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>get_function_skeleton</tool_name>
<arguments>{
"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT",
"filePath": "$TARGET_FILE"
}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
Confirm the approach with the user before writing code.
Step 4b — Adversarial challenge
Before writing any code, state explicitly what could break with this approach.
If .claude/antipatterns.md exists, read it and include any applicable patterns.
"Risk check on
$INSERTION_POINT:
$CALLER_Aand$CALLER_Bdepend on this function — verify their assumptions hold after the change.$EDGE_CASEis not covered by the current test suite — add it in Step 6.- [if antipatterns apply] AP-NNN (
$PATTERN_NAME) —$RULE— applies here because$REASON."
This is not a gate — do not wait for user input. It is a mandatory self-check that must appear in the output before the first line of code is written.
Step 4c — Record the design decision
Before writing any code, record the implementation approach if it represents a significant architectural choice:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>record_decision</tool_name>
<arguments>{
"directory": "$DIRECTORY",
"title": "$APPROACH_TITLE",
"rationale": "$WHY_THIS_APPROACH",
"consequences": "$TRADE_OFFS",
"affectedFiles": ["$TARGET_FILE"]
}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
Call this for: a non-obvious insertion point, a pattern chosen over alternatives, a new dependency introduced, or an interface contract established. Skip for trivial changes where the approach is self-evident.
Step 5 — Implement
Apply changes in this order:
- New types/interfaces (if needed)
- Core logic at the insertion point
- Updated call sites (if any)
Do not touch functions outside the scope identified in Step 2 / risk_context without
re-running the gate.
Small model constraint: if the model is under 13B parameters (Mistral Small, Phi, Gemma…), each edit must touch a contiguous block of at most 50 lines. Split larger changes.
Step 6 — Tests
Both levels required before proceeding to Step 7.
Mandatory — existing tests must not regress: Run the full test suite. If any pre-existing test breaks, fix the regression before continuing.
Recommended — at least one new test per AC: Write a test that directly exercises the behaviour described in the acceptance criterion.
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| All tests green, new tests written | Proceed to Step 7 |
| Existing test broken | Fix regression. Do not proceed. |
| New test reveals a misunderstanding of the AC | Return to Step 5, adjust implementation |
| Brownfield: no existing test coverage | Write the new test anyway. Note the coverage gap. |
Step 7 — Verify drift
Only run once tests are green.
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>openlore</server_name>
<tool_name>check_spec_drift</tool_name>
<arguments>{"directory": "$PROJECT_ROOT"}</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
| Drift type | Resolution |
|---|---|
uncovered on new files |
Note it — propose openlore generate post-sprint |
gap on existing domain |
Run openlore generate --domains $DOMAIN |
stale |
Fix the reference |
| No drift | Done |
Absolute constraints
- Do not write code before Step 4 confirmation
- If
riskScore ≥ 70— stop, do not work around it, run/openlore-execute-refactorfirst - Do not run
check_spec_driftbefore tests are green - Do not propose a spec update on untested code