agentleFS
GodMakingGodMaking/makecrew/skills/task-intake/SKILL.md

task-intake

Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use before executing a new project, website, app, product, video, document, campaign, automation, materially ambiguous request, or multi-task batch; clarify missing requirements, present a plan when needed, match installed Skills and local methods, then execute only after the applicable confirmation gate.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 16

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill as a lightweight router for a new task.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep the work in the current Codex conversation.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    every clear task: match required capabilities against installed Skills and local methods.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    When questions are needed, prefer deliverable, existing project/path, target user, constraints, success criteria, or deadline.

    line 25
  5. Distinctive:

    After each answer, map the response back to stable question IDs and recalculate remaining gaps.

    line 31
  6. Distinctive:

    Ask the user whether to install/use a candidate or continue with current capabilities.

    line 37
  7. Distinctive:

    Wait for the user's choice and explicit confirmation before high-cost, public, destructive, or irreversible actions.

    line 52
  8. Distinctive:

    Keep the panel of experts implicit in the current context.

    line 57
  9. Distinctive:

    Use batch mode only when the user supplies multiple independent tasks in one request or explicitly asks the CEO to coordinate several tasks.

    line 85
  10. Distinctive:

    If a task has no suitable employee, first propose the missing employee with its reason, responsibilities, required Skills, tools, memory …

    line 90
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not route a single task through CEO merely because the task uses several skills.

    line 97
  12. Very specific:

    When Codex native subagents are used, map the parent supervisor Agent to the MakeCrew supervisor and each child Agent to one employee.

    line 100
  13. Distinctive:

    Always surface the target and rollback/verification plan before production release, public posting, payment, deletion, or other …

    line 116
  14. Distinctive:

    Read only the current project context needed for the task.

    line 121
  15. Distinctive:

    Prefer one compact execution brief over repeated role messages.

    line 122
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not copy complete employee histories into the current conversation.

    line 123
  17. Distinctive:

    Do not create permanent employees for one-off work.

    line 124

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Task Intake and Execution

Use this skill as a lightweight router for a new task. Most requests should skip several stages rather than pass through one fixed pipeline.

Default: one task, one conversation

Keep the work in the current Codex conversation. Do not create a CEO handoff or separate employee conversation for an ordinary single task.

  1. Classify the request before model-heavy work:
    • clear, routine, reversible: execute now, then verify and deliver;
    • materially ambiguous: ask one to three blocking questions per round and continue until the task is decision-ready;
    • every clear task: match required capabilities against installed Skills and local methods;
    • missing local capability or fresh research/comparison need: expand discovery;
    • explicit plan-first request or consequential action: present a brief and wait;
    • one multi-domain task: form an implicit expert panel in this conversation;
    • several submitted tasks: use CEO batch mode.
  2. When questions are needed, prefer deliverable, existing project/path, target user, constraints, success criteria, or deadline. Total questions are 0-N, with one to three per round. Stop when material gaps are resolved or the user delegates remaining details to AI defaults. Give each gap a stable ID, prompt, and reason. Merge domain-specific gaps from the current model with the built-in gaps; skip IDs already answered. After each answer, map the response back to stable question IDs and recalculate remaining gaps; the 1-3 question display size is per round, never a total limit.
  3. For every decision-ready task, inspect the host's installed Skill inventory and match it to the task, tools, and acceptance checks. Use matching local Skills directly. When required capability IDs are missing, search external candidates and present each candidate's purpose, source, and trade-offs. Ask the user whether to install/use a candidate or continue with current capabilities. After installation, refresh the local inventory before work. Match local methods on every clear task; expand external method search when the user needs a fresh comparison, the local catalog has no match, or a capability gap remains. Prefer primary sources and label local versus fresh.
  4. For plan-first, product, or consequential work, present an execution brief before any execution confirmation:
    • selected skills and tools, with a reason for each;
    • candidate methods and Skills, with evidence and trade-offs;
    • planned workflow and deliverables;
    • acceptance checks and likely risks;
    • files, permissions, or user inputs still needed;
    • expected token/cost controls. The brief is a hard gate: include selected Skills and why, tools, methods, workflow, deliverables, acceptance checks, risks, and budget. Do not reduce it to a bare confirmation question.
  5. Wait for the user's choice and explicit confirmation before high-cost, public, destructive, or irreversible actions. A bare “continue” or “execute” confirms the presented brief only when no new scope has appeared.
  6. Execute in this conversation with the selected skills as soon as the chosen path is ready. Routine work has no confirmation round. Keep the panel of experts implicit in the current context; do not narrate unnecessary internal handoffs or repeat the full history.
  7. Finish with evidence, changed files/links, verification, limitations, and next action. Do not claim an external action without tool evidence.
  8. Trigger learning only after negative feedback, failed verification, rework, repeated issues, or an explicit retrospective request.

At a meaningful development milestone, before merge/release, or when a user requests an independent check, add review-and-critique and require findings with severity, file evidence, a concrete fix, and recheck status. For work that may be interrupted or retried, add checkpoint-recovery at node boundaries; persist compact state and an idempotency key, then resume from the latest checkpoint with a bounded retry policy. These are conditional nodes, not part of every routine task.

For a new or substantially redesigned website, app, product, or multi-stage feature, select product-delivery after intake. It adds a project brief, prototype/demo, technical design, and implementation gate; small maintenance tasks remain on the direct path.

The host should provide its installed Skill IDs and may provide both skill_searcher(task, missing_skill_ids) and method_searcher(task, domains) adapters. Local matching is automatic after clarification. External search is gap-driven or freshness-driven. Keep candidates pending until the user chooses and the host confirms installation or availability.

Batch mode: explicit multi-task request

Use batch mode only when the user supplies multiple independent tasks in one request or explicitly asks the CEO to coordinate several tasks. Then:

  1. CEO classifies each task and creates a minimal task packet.
  2. Reuse registered employee conversations first.
  3. If a task has no suitable employee, first propose the missing employee with its reason, responsibilities, required Skills, tools, memory scope, estimated cost, and impact. Create the employee conversation only after explicit user approval.
  4. Dispatch independent tasks in parallel and keep dependencies explicit.
  5. Return one compact status table and one consolidated QA summary.

Do not route a single task through CEO merely because the task uses several skills. Several skills can be selected inside the current conversation.

When Codex native subagents are used, map the parent supervisor Agent to the MakeCrew supervisor and each child Agent to one employee. The supervisor owns decomposition, dependencies, concurrency, waiting, conflict resolution, and the final synthesis; employees own bounded execution. Send each employee a minimal task packet with its Skill IDs, tools, context delta, file scope, budget, and acceptance gates, then collect only a structured result (summary, evidence, risks, next_steps). Use Codex Worktrees for independent writes and keep shared-file work serial.

The bundled CodexAdapter provides the host bridge for this contract. Bind spawn_subagent and send_to_thread to the native Codex operations, call audit() before dispatch, and keep the returned thread_id in the scheduler state for follow-up work.

Confirmation rules

Always surface the target and rollback/verification plan before production release, public posting, payment, deletion, or other irreversible actions.

Token rules

  • Read only the current project context needed for the task.
  • Prefer one compact execution brief over repeated role messages.
  • Do not copy complete employee histories into the current conversation.
  • Do not create permanent employees for one-off work; use a temporary scoped role and promote it only after repeated demand.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.