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
- omidnw/my-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- infragoodboys/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- gootf/software-agent-soptheir own version, first seen Aug 30, 2026
- yeaight7/agent-powerupstheir own version, first seen Jul 27, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- yeaight7/agent-powerups★ 6same name
- gootf/software-agent-sop★ 2same name
- infragoodboys/claude-skills★ 0same name
- omidnw/my-skills★ 0same name
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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- llms.txtllms.txt
- agentflow-osSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- checkpoint-recoverySkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- interview-meSkill
- makecrewSkill
- parallel-dispatchSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- product-deliverySkill
- review-and-critiqueSkill
- self-evolutionSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- skill-auditSkill
- source-driven-developmentSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill as a lightweight router for a new task.
- Distinctive: line 13
Keep the work in the current Codex conversation.
- Distinctive: line 20
every clear task: match required capabilities against installed Skills and local methods.
- Distinctive: line 25
When questions are needed, prefer deliverable, existing project/path, target user, constraints, success criteria, or deadline.
- Distinctive: line 31
After each answer, map the response back to stable question IDs and recalculate remaining gaps.
- Distinctive: line 37
Ask the user whether to install/use a candidate or continue with current capabilities.
- Distinctive: line 52
Wait for the user's choice and explicit confirmation before high-cost, public, destructive, or irreversible actions.
- Distinctive: line 57
Keep the panel of experts implicit in the current context.
- Distinctive: line 85
Use batch mode only when the user supplies multiple independent tasks in one request or explicitly asks the CEO to coordinate several tasks.
- Distinctive: line 90
If a task has no suitable employee, first propose the missing employee with its reason, responsibilities, required Skills, tools, memory …
- Distinctive: line 97
Do not route a single task through CEO merely because the task uses several skills.
- Very specific: line 100
When Codex native subagents are used, map the parent supervisor Agent to the MakeCrew supervisor and each child Agent to one employee.
- Distinctive: line 116
Always surface the target and rollback/verification plan before production release, public posting, payment, deletion, or other …
- Distinctive: line 121
Read only the current project context needed for the task.
- Distinctive: line 122
Prefer one compact execution brief over repeated role messages.
- Distinctive: line 123
Do not copy complete employee histories into the current conversation.
- Distinctive: line 124
Do not create permanent employees for one-off work.
“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.
Files
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Finish with evidence, changed files/links, verification, limitations, and next action. Do not claim an external action without tool evidence.
- 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:
- CEO classifies each task and creates a minimal task packet.
- Reuse registered employee conversations first.
- 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.
- Dispatch independent tasks in parallel and keep dependencies explicit.
- 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.
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.

