/spike
Throwaway experiments to validate an idea before build.
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add NousResearch/hermes-agent --skill spike -a windsurf -y
SKILL.md
spike.SKILL.mdname: spike
description: "Throwaway experiments to validate an idea before build."
version: 1.0.0
author: Hermes Agent (adapted from gsd-build/get-shit-done)
license: MIT
platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
metadata:
hermes:
tags: [spike, prototype, experiment, feasibility, throwaway, exploration, research, planning, mvp, proof-of-concept]
related_skills: [sketch, subagent-driven-development]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 the `plan` skill 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 findings1. 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 && python 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
Read more
name: spike
description: "Throwaway experiments to validate an idea before build."
version: 1.0.0
author: Hermes Agent (adapted from gsd-build/get-shit-done)
license: MIT
platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
metadata:
hermes:
tags: [spike, prototype, experiment, feasibility, throwaway, exploration, research, planning, mvp, proof-of-concept]
related_skills: [sketch, subagent-driven-development]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 the `plan` skill 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 findings1. 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 && python 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
The self-improving AI agent built by Nous Research. It's the only agent with a built-in learning loop — it creates skills from experience, improves them during use, nudges itself to persist knowledge, searches its own past conversations, and builds a
Other skills on hermes-agent.
More skills from other plugins.
karpathy-guidelines
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid…
agent-builder
Design and build AI agents for any domain. Use when users: (1) ask to "create an agent", "build an assistant", or "design an AI…
Questions about spike.
- Which coding agents can use spike?
- spike installs in Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, OpenCode and Windsurf with the skills CLI, using each agent's flag shown on this page. Flowy's auto-invocation, which fires a skill when your prompt matches, runs in Claude Code only.

