project-onboarding
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user pitches a new project or product idea, wants to start a new project, or asks for an onboarding interview — including vague ideas ("I have an idea for an app"). The only interactive skill of the suite; everything after it runs autonomously.
13 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- korallis/agent-stacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- a-attia/scicomp-research-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Nashova/LLM-Dev-Frameworktheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- fusebase-dev/fusebase-flowtheir own version, first seen Oct 16, 2026
- z-Zihan/Evirtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- z-Zihan/awesome-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 12, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use code-review.
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.
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 13
- korallis/agent-stack★ 42same name
- a-attia/scicomp-research-skills★ 13same name
- z-Zihan/Evir★ 11same name
- fusebase-dev/fusebase-flow★ 9same name
- Wubabalala/claude-skills★ 4same name
- z-Zihan/awesome-skills★ 4same name
- albibenni/skills★ 2same name
- codingthailand/nextjs-skill-app-workshop★ 1same name
- Gaurav890/everything-agentic-engineering★ 1same name
- liuxiao20051106-prog/claude-skills★ 1same name
3 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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- autonomous-loopSkill
- autonomous-setupSkill
- role-auditorSkill
- role-ceoSkill
- role-devSkill
- role-poSkill
- role-reviewerSkill
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 11 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
- Distinctive: line 19
Only start the interview once the user has confirmed or corrected the reflection.
- Very specific: line 22
Ask questions with AskUserQuestion (max.
- Distinctive: line 31
After each round, briefly summarize what is now settled.
- Distinctive: line 34
No leading questions that grow the scope ("Wouldn't you also like …?").
- Very specific: line 46
Create project/BRIEF.md from _shared/templates/BRIEF.template.md (status: DRAFT), show the user the key points compactly and obtain …
- Very specific: line 51
After approval, start autonomous-setup immediately.
- Distinctive: line 57
Must-have outcomes that aren't phrased verifiably ("should look good")
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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
Project Onboarding (Pitch Interview)
Goal
Extract all information from a pitch until autonomous work is possible — captured as an approved
project/BRIEF.md. This is the last opportunity to ask the user questions;
afterwards autonomous-setup takes over without follow-ups.
Process
1. Mirror the pitch
Reflect the idea back in 2–3 of your own sentences (core idea, assumed user, assumed problem). Only start the interview once the user has confirmed or corrected the reflection.
2. Interview in rounds
Ask questions with AskUserQuestion (max. 4 per round), one topic block per round,
rounds build on each other. Question catalog: references/interview-guide.md — adapt
round and wording to the answers there; don't work through it mechanically.
Order: A Core (problem, user, success) → B Scope (must-have outcomes, non-goals, smallest shippable version) → C Frame (time, cost, tech constraints, platform) → D Autonomy (escalation rules, extension budget, deployment limits).
Rules:
- After each round, briefly summarize what is now settled.
- "Don't know" → propose a default yourself and only have it confirmed — never drill deeper.
- Technical detail questions only if the user is visibly technical; otherwise ask about effect, not technology.
- No leading questions that grow the scope ("Wouldn't you also like …?"). The interview exists to sharpen the core, not to collect features.
- Spontaneous feature ideas — whether from the user ("Oh, and X would be cool too!") or the interviewer:
acknowledge briefly, note as a candidate for
project/IDEAS.mdand possibly as a non-goal, don't go deeper, return to the core. Only if the user insists it belongs to the core is it treated as a must-have-outcome candidate.
3. Check the Definition of Ready
Checklist in references/interview-guide.md#definition-of-ready. Every open item → a targeted
follow-up round or a marked default. Don't start while any item is neither answered nor
covered by a confirmed default.
4. Write the brief and get it approved
Create project/BRIEF.md from _shared/templates/BRIEF.template.md (status: DRAFT),
show the user the key points compactly and obtain explicit approval. Only after approval:
set status to APPROVED.
5. Handover
After approval, start autonomous-setup immediately. From here on, no more questions to the user —
the autonomy contract in the brief governs the only exceptions.
Red flags
- Interview starts without a confirmed reflection
- More than ~4 rounds without an interim summary → user fatigues; propose defaults
- Must-have outcomes that aren't phrased verifiably ("should look good")
- Setup starts although the brief is still DRAFT
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.

