blueprint
Skill2 starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub
Author a concrete blueprint for a slug: the intent (from vision and spec) and the shape being built now (classes, interfaces, dependencies, module relationships, build order) as Mermaid UML. Optional, after /draft-plan; also re-blueprints existing code (--from-code). Use on /blueprint [slug] or when the user asks to see the concrete shape before coding. Never auto-fires.
66 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Rojios/everything-claude-codetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- sanjaibalajee/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DevvGwardo/blueprint-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dimsedra/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- smilewilson1999/blueprinttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pankaj-mahaur/Agent-Daemontheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use assess, align and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
AWSSkillassess
Run a 5-domain CAF security posture assessment for an AWS service. Produces (1) assessment-summary.md — CAF-structured findings with GAPS tables, (2) sar-facts.json — extracted SAR data, (3) checkpoint-results.json — factual checkpoint verification. These feed into the research, validate, and generate phases.
Also in 3 projects that use this
marylinSkillalign
Audit project structure, docs health, and lifecycle compliance. Use when a project feels disorganized, after major refactors, before onboarding a contributor, or periodically as a health check.
Also in 3 projects that use this
LangChainSkilldocker-patterns
Best practices for Docker containerization and multi-stage builds
Also in 3 projects that use this
lukeleekrSkillscout
GitHub 레포 스카우터. 내 Claude Code + Codex App 환경을 분석하여 필요한 GitHub 레포를 자동 추천하거나, 키워드로 GitHub을 검색합니다. "scout", "스카우트", "깃헙 탐방", "레포 추천", "repo search" 등의 키워드에 반응합니다.
Also in 3 projects that use this
genomewalkerSkilllearn
Learn from web sources, generate SKILL.md, and store key patterns in soul memory. Trigger keywords: learn, skill-gen, web-learn, documentation, tutorial.
Also in 7 projects that use this
HABUBUSSSkilleval-harness
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions66 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 66
- WordPress/agent-skills★ 2.3ksame name
- hyperlink-academy/leaflet★ 527same name
- astronomer/agents★ 459same name
- loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes★ 272same name
- Joonghyun-Lee-Frieren/oh-my-antigravity★ 214same name
- Joonghyun-Lee-Frieren/oh-my-gemini-cli★ 214same name
- team-attention/hoyeon★ 173same name
- Fmarzochi/EGC★ 61same name
- manusco/resonance★ 38same name
- smilewilson1999/blueprint★ 27same name
56 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- autonomizeSkill
- brainstormSkill
- captureSkill
- checkpointSkill
- close-outSkill
- coordinateSkill
- cycleSkill
- deliverSkill
- design-proposalSkill
- discoverSkill
- dispatchSkill
- draft-planSkill
- envisionSkill
- executeSkill
- extract-conventionsSkill
- glossarySkill
- humanizeSkill
- human-viewSkill
- improve-promptSkill
- memory-auditSkill
- new-agentSkill
- new-agents-mdSkill
- new-hookSkill
- new-mcpSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- pr-authorSkill
- prepSkill
- pre-pushSkill
- pr-triageSkill
- recapSkill
- retrospect-coreSkill
- reviewSkill
- rulesSkill
- shortcutsSkill
- specSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- update-changelogSkill
- update-codemapSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- visualise-codemapSkill
- visualSkill
- work-stateSkill
- wrapSkill
- write-testsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 65 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 30
Do not auto-fire. Manual only (per universal/skill-auto-fire.md — a blueprint is a deliberate act, not a post-plan side effect).
- Distinctive: line 47
Both a stale spec and live code exist: prefer Mode 1 (spec is the intent) but add a Notes line: *"Code may have diverged from spec v<M> — …
- Distinctive: line 84
Never present inferred behavior as authoritative.
- Very specific: line 88
Keep diagrams legible (mirroring visualise-codemap's l2-* guards):
- Distinctive: line 122
No draft scratch file — only the accepted blueprint is written.
- Very specific: line 131
Allowlist: if the vault write is blocked, surface the exact outsideProjectWriteBlocker.allow line to add.
- Distinctive: line 140
If Mode 2, append the inference-verification reminder.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 65 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
blueprint
The concrete-blueprint organ.
A blueprint puts two things side by side so a competent engineer can see they're aligned and commit:
- What we wanted — the original intent (from the vision + spec).
- What we're building now — the mature concrete answer: classes, interfaces, dependencies, module/class relationships, build order — the actual shape, not a narrative of how it was planned.
It is optional and post-planning — reached for after /draft-plan when you want everything concretized in one place. It does not merge with /draft-plan (the plan stays the stepped plan; the blueprint is the concrete synthesis on top):
envision → spec → draft-plan → [ blueprint ] → execute (blueprint optional)It authors (writes new diagrams + the concrete shape). It is not visualise-codemap (which renders structure from finished code — derived, post-hoc). Mermaid templates live in mermaid-templates.md.
The point is intent + mature concrete shape, aligned. It is not a process log: how the plan was arrived at is deliberately out of scope — keep a light "key decisions" note only when it's free (§4 step 3).
When to run
- User types
/blueprint [slug] [--from-code]. - User asks to "blueprint this", "show the concrete shape", "give me the classes/interfaces/deps before I build".
/draft-plan's close offers it — but the user still invokes it explicitly.- Do not auto-fire. Manual only (per
universal/skill-auto-fire.md— a blueprint is a deliberate act, not a post-plan side effect). Optional by design: small plans rarely need it.
Inputs
- Slug. From
/blueprint <slug>, or resolved like/draft-plan(default → single active → ask) when omitted. - Mode. Mode 1 (intent-driven) by default; Mode 2 (
--from-code, or auto-selected when the slug has no vision/spec). - Project root.
$CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIRif set, else cwd. - Obsidian vault root + project folder. The vault root (
<Vault>) is read from machine-local config —vaultRootin~/.claude/hook-config.json— never hardcoded (peruniversal/no-hardcoded-machine-paths.md). IfvaultRootis absent, do not guess: surface "SetvaultRootin~/.claude/hook-config.jsonto write vault artefacts." and write only the in-repo blueprint.<ProjectFolder>inference (match an existingProjects/<Name>/subfolder under<Vault>, else ask once) — the root comes from config, not a literal.
Procedure
1. Resolve slug and mode
- Slug: given → use it. Omitted → resolve via
.claude/specs/INDEX.mdper draft-plan's canonical slug-resolution cascade (draft-plan SKILL.md § Forms). With--from-codeand no slug, there is usually nothing to resolve against — ask for the slug (it names the output directory); never derive one silently from a path or a directory name. - Mode:
--from-codeflag → Mode 2.- Else check for
.claude/specs/<slug>/(active) and/or.claude/visions/<slug>/. Present → Mode 1. Absent → Mode 2 (announce: "No spec/vision for<slug>— running from code + codemap."). - Both a stale spec and live code exist: prefer Mode 1 (spec is the intent) but add a Notes line: "Code may have diverged from spec v
<M>— verify."
2. Read the sources
Mode 1 (intent-driven):
.claude/visions/<slug>/active (if present) — intent, UX shape, module partition, boundaries → feeds What we wanted..claude/specs/<slug>/v<M>.mdactive — the authoritative requirements +done_criteria→ feeds What we wanted + the concrete surface..claude/plans/<slug>/v<N>.mdactive (optional) — build order + the entities the steps name → feeds What we're building (dependencies/build order). Soft-referenced.
Mode 2 (from-code):
.claude/codemap.md(if present) — module/file/class structure, exports, dependency edges. Drives the concrete shape structurally.- The codebase — Read/Grep the modules the codemap names. Inference is bounded by codemap's extraction quality (tree-sitter AST across ~18 languages, with a regex fallback only when the tree-sitter deps aren't installed) — the same limit visualise-codemap documents.
3. Determine output version and paths
- In-repo:
.claude/docs/<slug>/. Empty/absent →v1.md. Else →v<N+1>.md. Versioning follows spec's canonical contract (spec SKILL.md § Versioning contract): mark the previous version superseded with asuperseded_bypointer and regenerate the INDEX. - Vault:
<Vault>/Projects/<ProjectFolder>/Docs/<slug>-blueprint.md(or per-section split — see step 7). Reuse visualise-codemap's<ProjectFolder>inference and allowlist-surfacing.
4. Author the blueprint (adaptive — omit empty)
Three parts. Omit any part whose source material is empty — no "N/A" placeholders. Where a Mode-1 source is silent on something a part needs, batch that part's gaps into a single AskUserQuestion round (the tool caps at 4 questions; do two rounds if more). Never invent. In Mode 2, do not interview — infer and label (§4.4). Diagram templates are in mermaid-templates.md.
- What we wanted (intent). 1–3 short paragraphs from the vision's intent + the spec's problem/goals/done-criteria (Mode 1) or the codemap's inferred purpose (Mode 2): what the system is, who it's for, the success criterion. No diagram. Terse — this is the comparand, not an essay.
- What we're building now (the concrete shape). The mature, concrete answer — the heart of the blueprint. Author whichever of these the slug actually has:
- Module / component map — a
C4Containerblock AND a flowchart fallback (template:c4-architecture) showing modules, responsibilities, and the relationships between them. Always present when there is more than one module. - Classes & interfaces — a
classDiagram(template:class) of the concrete types: interfaces, classes, their key fields and operations, and relationships (extends / implements / composition). From the spec's defined entities + the plan's named types (Mode 1) or the codemap's## Class graph(Mode 2). This is what "concrete" means — the actual surface to be built. - Dependencies & build order — a dependency graph (flowchart) of module/class dependencies, plus a short build order list (what gets built first, what depends on it). From the plan's step ordering (Mode 1) or the codemap's dependency edges (Mode 2).
- Key runtime flows (optional) — a
sequenceDiagram(template:sequence) for the one or two interactions that actually matter. Skip the exhaustive flow catalogue — only the load-bearing ones. Mode 2: label inferred flows%% inferred — verify against runtime. - Data model (optional) —
classDiagram+erDiagram(templates:class,er) only when there is persisted state worth pinning.
- Module / component map — a
- Alignment — 2–4 lines closing the loop: does the concrete shape in part 2 still serve the intent in part 1? Name any place it drifted, narrowed, or added scope the intent didn't ask for. This is the commit point — the engineer reads this to decide "yes, build it." (Optionally fold in a one-line key decision note here when a concrete choice is non-obvious — e.g. "chose composition over an inheritance tree for the renderers." Keep it to the decision, not the deliberation — process is out of scope.)
4.4 Mode 2 inference discipline
- Structural parts (module map, classes, data model, dependencies) are sourced from the codemap/code and are reasonably reliable.
- Behavioral parts (runtime flows) are inferred from call graphs. Every such diagram carries a
%% inferred — verify against runtimecomment as its first line, and## Notesstates: "Runtime flows are inferred from the codemap's static call graph (tree-sitter AST; TS/C# receiver-type-resolved, other languages syntactic name-match) — static call structure, not a runtime trace; verify against the running system. Intent (part 1) is reconstructed from code; run/spec <slug>to capture the real intent if it matters." - Never present inferred behavior as authoritative.
4.5 Fan-out caps
Keep diagrams legible (mirroring visualise-codemap's l2-* guards):
- Sequence diagram > ~12 participants → split per sub-scenario; note the split.
- Class diagram > ~15 nodes → split per module/aggregate; note the split. A diagram that routinely blows the cap signals over-broad scope — a finding, not a render bug.
5. Assemble the blueprint
Frontmatter:
---
slug: <slug>
version: <N>
status: active
spec: ../../specs/<slug>/v<M>.md # Mode 1 hard-pin; omit in Mode 2 (no spec)
plan: ../../plans/<slug>/v<P>.md # soft reference; omit if no plan
supersedes: v<N-1>.md # omit on v1
mode: intent-driven | from-code
created: YYYY-MM-DD
description: <one-line — what this blueprint commits to>
---Body: # Blueprint — <slug> (v<N>), a one-line source provenance line, then the non-empty parts in order (What we wanted → What we're building → Alignment). End with ## Notes (caveats, omitted parts, Mode-2 inference warnings, fan-out splits).
6. Review gate — present before writing
Do not write any file yet. Present the drafted blueprint for accept / edit / reject (the propose-confirm-commit gate), offering a human-view projection — "want the plain-prose approval view? (/human-view)" — alongside:
- Small blueprint (≤ 3 diagrams): render the full body inline, then ask accept/edit/reject.
- Large blueprint: render a part outline (one line per part + its diagram types), then ask: "Show a part inline, write to disk, or edit a part? (accept / show
<n>/ write / edit<n>/ reject)." - edit: the user describes changes ("drop the data model", "the renderer should implement IFrameSource, not extend it"). Apply to the in-conversation draft, re-present.
- reject: discard. Write nothing. Acknowledge and stop.
No draft scratch file — only the accepted blueprint is written.
7. Write artefacts (on accept)
In-repo (always single file): .claude/docs/<slug>/v<N>.md. Create the dir if absent. Supersede the previous active version when N > 1. Update .claude/docs/INDEX.md (same shape as specs/plans INDEX).
Vault: reuse visualise-codemap's conventions exactly.
- Single-file mode (≤ ~4 diagrams):
<Vault>/Projects/<ProjectFolder>/Docs/<slug>-blueprint.md, frontmatter + full body. - Per-section split (above the threshold): an index note + one note per part under
<Vault>/Projects/<ProjectFolder>/Docs/<slug>/, each with a back-link and its diagrams. Obsidian renders one-diagram-per-note far faster on large blueprints. - Allowlist: if the vault write is blocked, surface the exact
outsideProjectWriteBlocker.allowline to add. Do not edithook-config.json— the user owns hook-config edits.
8. Report
Wrote .claude/docs/<slug>/v<N>.md (<K> parts, <D> diagrams), pinned to spec v<M>.
Wrote <Vault>/Projects/<ProjectFolder>/Docs/<slug>-blueprint.md (+ N part notes).
Mode: <intent-driven | from-code>.If Mode 2, append the inference-verification reminder.
More in reference.md: What blueprint does NOT do, relationship to other skills, limits (v1).
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

