spike
Throwaway experiments to validate an idea before build.
Best use case
spike is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Throwaway experiments to validate an idea before build.
Teams using spike should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/spike/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How spike Compares
| Feature / Agent | spike | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Throwaway experiments to validate an idea before build.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Spike
Use this skill when the user wants to **feel out an idea** before committing to a real build — validating feasibility, comparing approaches, or surfacing unknowns that no amount of research will answer. Spikes are disposable by design. Throw them away once they've paid their debt.
Load this when the user says things like "let me try this", "I want to see if X works", "spike this out", "before I commit to Y", "quick prototype of Z", "is this even possible?", or "compare A vs B".
## When NOT to use this
- The answer is knowable from docs or reading code — just do research, don't build
- The work is production path — use `writing-plans` / `plan` instead
- The idea is already validated — jump straight to implementation
## If the user has the full GSD system installed
If `gsd-spike` shows up as a sibling skill (installed via `npx get-shit-done-cc --hermes`), prefer **`gsd-spike`** when the user wants the full GSD workflow: persistent `.planning/spikes/` state, MANIFEST tracking across sessions, Given/When/Then verdict format, and commit patterns that integrate with the rest of GSD. This skill is the lightweight standalone version for users who don't have (or don't want) the full system.
## Core method
Regardless of scale, every spike follows this loop:
```
decompose → research → build → verdict
↑__________________________________________↓
iterate on findings
```
### 1. Decompose
Break the user's idea into **2-5 independent feasibility questions**. Each question is one spike. Present them as a table with Given/When/Then framing:
| # | Spike | Validates (Given/When/Then) | Risk |
|---|-------|----------------------------|------|
| 001 | websocket-streaming | Given a WS connection, when LLM streams tokens, then client receives chunks < 100ms | High |
| 002a | pdf-parse-pdfjs | Given a multi-page PDF, when parsed with pdfjs, then structured text is extractable | Medium |
| 002b | pdf-parse-camelot | Given a multi-page PDF, when parsed with camelot, then structured text is extractable | Medium |
**Spike types:**
- **standard** — one approach answering one question
- **comparison** — same question, different approaches (shared number, letter suffix `a`/`b`/`c`)
**Good spike questions:** specific feasibility with observable output.
**Bad spike questions:** too broad, no observable output, or just "read the docs about X".
**Order by risk.** The spike most likely to kill the idea runs first. No point prototyping the easy parts if the hard part doesn't work.
**Skip decomposition** only if the user already knows exactly what they want to spike and says so. Then take their idea as a single spike.
### 2. Align (for multi-spike ideas)
Present the spike table. Ask: "Build all in this order, or adjust?" Let the user drop, reorder, or re-frame before you write any code.
### 3. Research (per spike, before building)
Spikes are not research-free — you research enough to pick the right approach, then you build. Per spike:
1. **Brief it.** 2-3 sentences: what this spike is, why it matters, key risk.
2. **Surface competing approaches** if there's real choice:
| Approach | Tool/Library | Pros | Cons | Status |
|----------|-------------|------|------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | maintained / abandoned / beta |
3. **Pick one.** State why. If 2+ are credible, build quick variants within the spike.
4. **Skip research** for pure logic with no external dependencies.
Use Hermes tools for the research step:
- `web_search("python websocket streaming libraries 2025")` — find candidates
- `web_extract(urls=["https://websockets.readthedocs.io/..."])` — read the actual docs (returns markdown)
- `terminal("pip show websockets | grep Version")` — check what's installed in the project's venv
For libraries without docs pages, clone and read their `README.md` / `examples/` via `read_file`. Context7 MCP (if the user has it configured) is also a good source — `mcp_*_resolve-library-id` then `mcp_*_query-docs`.
### 4. Build
One directory per spike. Keep it standalone.
```
spikes/
├── 001-websocket-streaming/
│ ├── README.md
│ └── main.py
├── 002a-pdf-parse-pdfjs/
│ ├── README.md
│ └── parse.js
└── 002b-pdf-parse-camelot/
├── README.md
└── parse.py
```
**Bias toward something the user can interact with.** Spikes fail when the only output is a log line that says "it works." The user wants to *feel* the spike working. Default choices, in order of preference:
1. A runnable CLI that takes input and prints observable output
2. A minimal HTML page that demonstrates the behavior
3. A small web server with one endpoint
4. A unit test that exercises the question with recognizable assertions
**Depth over speed.** Never declare "it works" after one happy-path run. Test edge cases. Follow surprising findings. The verdict is only trustworthy when the investigation was honest.
**Avoid** unless the spike specifically requires it: complex package management, build tools/bundlers, Docker, env files, config systems. Hardcode everything — it's a spike.
**Building one spike** — a typical tool sequence:
```
terminal("mkdir -p spikes/001-websocket-streaming")
write_file("spikes/001-websocket-streaming/README.md", "# 001: websocket-streaming\n\n...")
write_file("spikes/001-websocket-streaming/main.py", "...")
terminal("cd spikes/001-websocket-streaming && python3 main.py")
# Observe output, iterate.
```
**Parallel comparison spikes (002a / 002b) — delegate.** When two approaches can run in parallel and both need real engineering (not 10-line prototypes), fan out with `delegate_task`:
```
delegate_task(tasks=[
{"goal": "Build 002a-pdf-parse-pdfjs: ...", "toolsets": ["terminal", "file", "web"]},
{"goal": "Build 002b-pdf-parse-camelot: ...", "toolsets": ["terminal", "file", "web"]},
])
```
Each subagent returns its own verdict; you write the head-to-head.
### 5. Verdict
Each spike's `README.md` closes with:
```markdown
## Verdict: VALIDATED | PARTIAL | INVALIDATED
### What worked
- ...
### What didn't
- ...
### Surprises
- ...
### Recommendation for the real build
- ...
```
**VALIDATED** = the core question was answered yes, with evidence.
**PARTIAL** = it works under constraints X, Y, Z — document them.
**INVALIDATED** = doesn't work, for this reason. This is a successful spike.
## Comparison spikes
When two approaches answer the same question (002a / 002b), build them **back to back**, then do a head-to-head comparison at the end:
```markdown
## Head-to-head: pdfjs vs camelot
| Dimension | pdfjs (002a) | camelot (002b) |
|-----------|--------------|----------------|
| Extraction quality | 9/10 structured | 7/10 table-only |
| Setup complexity | npm install, 1 line | pip + ghostscript |
| Perf on 100-page PDF | 3s | 18s |
| Handles rotated text | no | yes |
**Winner:** pdfjs for our use case. Camelot if we need table-first extraction later.
```
## Frontier mode (picking what to spike next)
If spikes already exist and the user says "what should I spike next?", walk the existing directories and look for:
- **Integration risks** — two validated spikes that touch the same resource but were tested independently
- **Data handoffs** — spike A's output was assumed compatible with spike B's input; never proven
- **Gaps in the vision** — capabilities assumed but unproven
- **Alternative approaches** — different angles for PARTIAL or INVALIDATED spikes
Propose 2-4 candidates as Given/When/Then. Let the user pick.
## Output
- Create `spikes/` (or `.planning/spikes/` if the user is using GSD conventions) in the repo root
- One dir per spike: `NNN-descriptive-name/`
- `README.md` per spike captures question, approach, results, verdict
- Keep the code throwaway — a spike that takes 2 days to "clean up for production" was a bad spike
## Attribution
Adapted from the GSD (Get Shit Done) project's `/gsd-spike` workflow — MIT © 2025 Lex Christopherson ([gsd-build/get-shit-done](https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done)). The full GSD system offers persistent spike state, MANIFEST tracking, and integration with a broader spec-driven development pipeline; install with `npx get-shit-done-cc --hermes --global`.Related Skills
test-oversized-skill
A test fixture skill that exceeds 200 lines with multiple H2/H3 sections for split testing.
interactive-report-generator
Generate interactive HTML reports with Plotly visualizations from data analysis results. Supports dashboards, charts, and professional styling.
data-validation-reporter
Generate interactive validation reports with quality scoring, missing data analysis, and type checking. Combines Pandas validation, Plotly visualization, and YAML configuration for comprehensive data quality reporting.
agent-os-framework
Generate standardized .agent-os directory structure with product documentation, mission, tech-stack, roadmap, and decision records. Enables AI-native workflows.
OrcaFlex Specialist Skill
```yaml
repo-ecosystem-hygiene
Interpret the daily read-only repo ecosystem hygiene audit and route remediation through approved workflows.
domain-knowledge-sweep
Systematic multi-source research of an engineering domain. Spawns parent issue → 6 research subissues (Standards, Academic, Industry, LinkedIn-marketing, Code-audit, Synthesis) → gap implementation subissues. Replaces LinkedIn-only extraction with defensible comprehensive sourcing.
subagent-write-verification
Independently verify subagent-claimed file writes with filesystem and git checks before treating the artifact as real, before committing it, and before referencing the path in downstream prompts.
git-operation-serialization-preflight
Before any commit, stash, merge, reset, rebase, or checkout in a multi-agent or shared-checkout environment, run a bounded preflight to detect active git writers and stale index/config locks, then serialize the mutating step under a single-writer guarantee.
public-knowledge-graph-governance
Maintain public-safe knowledge graph artifacts for llm-wiki and similar markdown knowledge bases. Use when changing graph generators, validators, schema docs, weekly freshness checks, or public/private source-scope boundaries.
llm-wiki-weekly-freshness
Class-level governance workflow for keeping llm-wiki-style markdown knowledge bases current, public-safe, graph/index-valid, and useful for code development. Use when reviewing llm-wiki architecture/content, scanning new LLM concepts, maintaining public knowledge graphs, producing an issue roadmap, or running recurring freshness cadence.
llm-wiki-source-extraction-coverage
Doc-type-aware extraction contract for llm-wiki source ingestion with measurable coverage and source-anchored traceability. Use when (1) ingesting a PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, HTML, or scanned-image source into a wiki `sources/` page, (2) computing the pre-extraction estimate (what fraction of the source we expect to recover) and post-extraction yield (what fraction we actually recovered), (3) anchoring wiki claims back to specific page / paragraph / cell / slide positions in the source so a reviewer can re-verify or revise against the actual document, (4) deciding whether OCR fallback or manual transcription is needed. Codifies workspace-hub's existing OCR fallback chain and python-docx / openpyxl / trafilatura patterns into a format-specific routing table. Companion to research/llm-wiki-page-shape-contract (Rule 7 input-layer pages) and research/llm-wiki — this skill is the defense against silent extraction failure.