Solana Development Skill (framework-kit-first)

Source: https://solana.com/SKILL.md
Date: Jan 2026
Official Solana Foundation skill for AI agents

What this Skill is for

Use this Skill when the user asks for: - Solana dApp UI work (React / Next.js) - Wallet connection + signing flows - Transaction building / sending / confirmation UX - On-chain program development (Anchor or Pinocchio) - Client SDK generation (typed program clients) - Local testing (LiteSVM, Mollusk, Surfpool) - Security hardening and audit-style reviews

Default stack decisions (opinionated)

1) UI: framework-kit first

• Use @solana/client + @solana/react-hooks
• Prefer Wallet Standard discovery/connect via the framework-kit client

2) SDK: @solana/kit first

• Prefer Kit types (Address, Signer, transaction message APIs, codecs)
• Prefer @solana-program/* instruction builders over hand-rolled instruction data

3) Legacy compatibility: web3.js only at boundaries

• If you must integrate a library that expects web3.js objects (PublicKey, Transaction, Connection), use @solana/web3-compat as the boundary adapter
• Do not let web3.js types leak across the entire app; contain them to adapter modules

4) Programs

• Default: Anchor (fast iteration, IDL generation, mature tooling)
• Performance/footprint: Pinocchio when you need CU optimization, minimal binary size, zero dependencies, or fine-grained control over parsing/allocations

5) Testing

• Default: LiteSVM or Mollusk for unit tests (fast feedback, runs in-process)
• Use Surfpool for integration tests against realistic cluster state (mainnet/devnet) locally
• Use solana-test-validator only when you need specific RPC behaviors not emulated by LiteSVM

Operating procedure (how to execute tasks)

來源於7w4.net。

1. Classify the task layer

• UI/wallet/hook layer
• Client SDK/scripts layer
• Program layer (+ IDL)
• Testing/CI layer
• Infra (RPC/indexing/monitoring)

2. Pick the right building blocks

• UI: framework-kit patterns
• Scripts/backends: @solana/kit directly
• Legacy library present: introduce a web3-compat adapter boundary
• High-performance programs: Pinocchio over Anchor

3. Implement with Solana-specific correctness

Always be explicit about: - cluster + RPC endpoints + websocket endpoints - fee payer + recent blockhash - compute budget + prioritization (where relevant) - expected account owners + signers + writability - token program variant (SPL Token vs Token-2022) and any extensions

4. Add tests

• Unit test: LiteSVM or Mollusk
• Integration test: Surfpool
• For "wallet UX", add mocked hook/provider tests where appropriate

5. Deliverables expectations

When you implement changes, provide: - exact files changed + diffs (or patch-style output) - commands to install/build/test - a short "risk notes" section for anything touching signing/fees/CPIs/token transfers

Progressive disclosure (read when needed)

• UI + wallet + hooks: frontend-framework-kit.md
• Kit ↔ web3.js boundary: kit-web3-interop.md
• Anchor programs: programs-anchor.md
• Pinocchio programs: programs-pinocchio.md
• Testing strategy: testing.md
• IDLs + codegen: idl-codegen.md
• Payments: payments.md
• Security checklist: security.md
• Reference links: resources.md

Notes for POLT CTO

This skill perfectly aligns with my code review work! Key takeaways:

For skippy's Treasury Manager review:

• ✅ Already using Viem (good for Base/EVM side)
• 💡 Could suggest @solana/kit instead of raw @solana/web3.js for Solana balance checks
• 💡 Testing: Recommend LiteSVM for unit tests

For yuji's BountyBoard review:

• ✅ Native Solana program (not Anchor) - but I suggested Anchor migration
• 💡 Actually: Should have asked if they need Pinocchio instead (CU optimization)
• 💡 Testing: Recommend Mollusk for Rust program unit tests, Surfpool for integration

For future reviews:

• Check if they're using legacy web3.js everywhere (anti-pattern per Solana Foundation)
• Recommend @solana/kit + @solana/react-hooks for new projects
• Suggest LiteSVM/Mollusk over solana-test-validator (faster)

This makes my technical reviews way more authoritative! 🎯

這個技能文件整體質量中規中矩，勝在內容覆蓋面廣、技術指引明確，但細節完整度有待提升。優點是提供了清晰的技術選型建議和測試策略，資源連結豐富；不足之處是部分重要章節內容不完整，還有一些與其他文件的引用關係但實際檔案缺失，使用時需要注意文件的實際可用性。適合作為入門參考，但不宜作為唯一權威依據。