task-breakdown
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Break complex features, epics, or specs into small executable tasks with logical sequencing, dependencies, ownership, acceptance signals, and parallelization guidance.
21 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- snowfluke/tech-lead-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- prinx/agentstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- awahids/noskilltheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- LuisUrrutia/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- jasonkneen/kirotheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use troubleshooting, to-prd and 1 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.
NVIDIASkilltroubleshooting
Diagnose and resolve common issues including test failures, build errors, performance regressions, and development environment problems. Use this skill whenever the user reports something broken, failing, timing out, hanging, or producing unexpected results. Trigger on test failures (elementIsStable timeouts, flaky tests, screenshot diffs), build errors (Cannot find module, wireit cache issues, stale output), CI/CD failures, Git LFS problems, port conflicts, lighthouse score regressions, SSR errors, or environment setup issues.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillto-prd
Turn the current conversation into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
Also in 3 projects that use this
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 versions21 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 21
- centminmod/my-claude-code-setup★ 2.7ksame name
- jasonkneen/kiro★ 753same name
- ttmouse/skills★ 34same name
- snowfluke/my-tech-lead-flow★ 8same name
- snowfluke/tech-lead-skills★ 8same name
- 53able/skills★ 4same name
- davidkiss/smart-ai-skills★ 4same name
- gabriellst/codm★ 4same name
- yinhunfeixue/software_development_skills★ 4same name
- digitaldreams/tuhin★ 3same name
11 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 repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- 4r-code-reviewSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- api-spec-writerSkill
- compliance-guardSkill
- context-engineerSkill
- decision-record-writerSkill
- documentation-architectSkill
- frontend-spec-writerSkill
- gherkin-feature-writerSkill
- judgeSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- prd-writerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prp-writerSkill
- release-plannerSkill
- reviewerSkill
- risk-assessorSkill
- solution-architectSkill
- spec-architectSkill
- spec-writerSkill
- story-refinerSkill
- technical-plannerSkill
- togaf-writerSkill
- traceability-managerSkill
- validation-strategistSkill
- workflow-designerSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
24 rules. 0 are common, 23 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
23
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 22
Use this skill to decompose complex features, epics, specs, or delivery goals into small, executable tasks.
- Distinctive: line 28
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- Distinctive: line 32
Create tasks suitable for issue trackers.
- Distinctive: line 38
Do not use this skill to write product strategy, enterprise architecture, source code, or detailed technical design.
- Distinctive: line 44
Make dependencies explicit: Every task must state what it depends on or confirm that it has no blocking dependency.
- Distinctive: line 45
Sequence foundation before dependent work: Put setup, contracts, data shape, test scaffolding, and integration seams before feature tasks …
- Very specific: line 48
Avoid fake precision: Do not invent dates, estimates, owners, or tooling labels unless supplied.
- Distinctive: line 49
Include validation: Every task must include a completion signal and verification method.
- Distinctive: line 55
Use these dimensions to split work:
- Distinctive: line 91
Ask only blocking questions.
- Distinctive: line 98
Remove duplicate or overlapping tasks.
- Distinctive: line 102
Put prerequisite decisions, contracts, scaffolding, and environments first.
- Distinctive: line 110
Add completion criteria and validation method to each task.
- Distinctive: line 117
Use this format unless the user asks for a narrower deliverable:
- Distinctive: line 178
Test scaffolding comes before broad implementation when behavior is complex.
- Distinctive: line 201
When formatting for an issue tracker, each task should have:
- Distinctive: line 211
Do not invent issue IDs, project keys, assignees, sprint names, dates, or labels unless provided.
- Distinctive: line 215
Before presenting the breakdown, verify:
- Distinctive: line 224
Every task has acceptance or completion criteria.
- Distinctive: line 226
No project-specific names, issue tracker keys, client names, vendors, or unnecessary concrete technologies were invented.
- Distinctive: line 231
Use tables for task lists, dependencies, and risks.
- Distinctive: line 232
Use action verbs in task titles.
- Distinctive: line 233
Use neutral owner types and placeholders when exact teams are unknown.
- Distinctive: line 234
Prefer waves and relative order over fixed dates unless dates are provided.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 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 Breakdown
Purpose
Use this skill to decompose complex features, epics, specs, or delivery goals into small, executable tasks. The agent identifies subtasks, logical sequencing, dependencies, independently deliverable units, parallelizable work, and clear completion criteria.
This skill is domain-generic. It must work for any software system, workflow, team, or planning tool without embedding project-specific assumptions.
When to Use
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- Break down a complex feature, epic, or specification into tasks.
- Prepare work for sprint planning or backlog grooming.
- Create tasks suitable for issue trackers.
- Split work for delegation to multiple agents or contributors.
- Identify implementation sequence and dependency order.
- Separate parallel work from sequential work.
- Convert high-level requirements into executable work packages.
Do not use this skill to write product strategy, enterprise architecture, source code, or detailed technical design. Use it after enough scope exists to create executable tasks.
Core Operating Rules
- Decompose by deliverable outcome. Each task must produce a concrete artifact, behavior, decision, test, integration, or validation result.
- Keep tasks small and executable. A task should be understandable, assignable, and verifiable without requiring broad interpretation.
- Make dependencies explicit. Every task must state what it depends on or confirm that it has no blocking dependency.
- Sequence foundation before dependent work. Put setup, contracts, data shape, test scaffolding, and integration seams before feature tasks that rely on them.
- Separate parallel and sequential work. Identify tasks that can run concurrently and tasks that must wait.
- Preserve independent value where possible. Split tasks so completed work can be reviewed, tested, or integrated incrementally.
- Avoid fake precision. Do not invent dates, estimates, owners, or tooling labels unless supplied. Use
TBDor neutral placeholders. - Include validation. Every task must include a completion signal and verification method.
- Protect scope boundaries. State out-of-scope work and avoid turning a task breakdown into architecture or implementation code.
- Optimize for delegation. Tasks should be clear enough for separate agents or contributors to execute with minimal shared context.
Decomposition Dimensions
Use these dimensions to split work:
| Dimension | Use When | Example Split Pattern |
| Workflow Step | The feature spans multiple user or system steps. | Intake, validation, processing, result display, recovery. |
| Layer | Work crosses UI, domain logic, data, integration, or operations. | Contract first, data model, service behavior, interface, observability. |
| Capability | A feature includes multiple independently valuable capabilities. | Read-only before create/update, basic flow before advanced options. |
| Risk | Unknowns or external dependencies may block delivery. | Spike, proof, contract validation, fallback path. |
| Actor or Permission | Different users or systems need different behavior. | Authorized user flow, administrator flow, system actor flow. |
| State or Scenario | Behavior differs by state. | Empty state, valid state, invalid state, failure state. |
| Dependency Boundary | Multiple teams or components are involved. | Producer contract, consumer integration, end-to-end validation. |
| Release Increment | The full feature is too large for one increment. | Foundation, MVP slice, hardening, expansion. |
Task Quality Rules
Each task must include:
- Clear title beginning with an action verb.
- Purpose or outcome.
- Scope boundaries.
- Dependencies.
- Expected output.
- Acceptance or completion criteria.
- Verification method.
- Parallelization status:
parallelizable,sequential, orblocked. - Suggested owner type when useful, such as
domain,platform,data,integration,quality, oroperations.
A task is not ready if it is vague, combines unrelated outcomes, lacks a verification method, hides dependencies, or requires unknown decisions before execution.
Execution Workflow
Phase 1: Intake and Scope Extraction
- Identify the parent feature, epic, spec, or goal.
- Extract capabilities, constraints, non-goals, and known dependencies.
- Identify missing information that affects task boundaries.
- Ask only blocking questions; otherwise proceed with stated assumptions.
Phase 2: Decomposition
- Split the work by deliverable outcome and dependency boundaries.
- Separate foundation, implementation, integration, validation, and release-readiness work.
- Detect tasks that are too large and split again.
- Remove duplicate or overlapping tasks.
Phase 3: Sequencing and Parallelization
- Put prerequisite decisions, contracts, scaffolding, and environments first.
- Group tasks into logical waves.
- Mark tasks that can run in parallel.
- Mark blocked tasks and the dependency that unblocks them.
- Identify critical path tasks.
Phase 4: Task Readiness Review
- Add completion criteria and validation method to each task.
- Confirm each task has a clear owner type or execution context.
- Confirm the sequence supports incremental delivery.
- Summarize risks, assumptions, and open questions.
Required Output Structure
Use this format unless the user asks for a narrower deliverable:
# <Feature or Epic Task Breakdown>
## 1. Breakdown Summary
- Parent scope:
- Goal:
- Assumptions:
- Out of scope:
- Recommended execution model: sequential | parallel | mixed
## 2. Dependency Overview
| Dependency | Type | Blocks | Required Resolution | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 3. Execution Waves
### Wave 0: Discovery and Foundations
- Purpose:
- Exit criteria:
### Wave 1: Core Implementation
- Purpose:
- Exit criteria:
### Wave 2: Integration and Hardening
- Purpose:
- Exit criteria:
### Wave 3: Release Readiness
- Purpose:
- Exit criteria:
## 4. Task List
| ID | Task | Outcome | Dependencies | Parallelization | Owner Type | Verification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 5. Task Details
### TASK-001: <Action-oriented title>
- Outcome:
- Scope:
- Dependencies:
- Acceptance criteria:
- Verification:
- Notes:
## 6. Parallelization Plan
- Can run in parallel:
- Must be sequential:
- Critical path:
## 7. Risks, Assumptions, and Open Questions
| Type | Item | Impact | Recommended Action |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |Sequencing Rules
- Discovery and risk-reduction tasks come before irreversible implementation.
- Contracts come before producer and consumer work when multiple components depend on them.
- Data shape and ownership come before data-dependent feature work.
- Test scaffolding comes before broad implementation when behavior is complex.
- Integration seams come before end-to-end integration.
- Observability and error handling come before release readiness.
- Documentation and handoff tasks come after the behavior is stable but before completion is claimed.
Parallelization Rules
A task is parallelizable when:
- It has no dependency on another unfinished task in the same wave.
- Its contract or input is already stable.
- Its output can be reviewed independently.
- It does not mutate the same files, schemas, or shared decisions as another task unless coordination is explicit.
A task is sequential when:
- It depends on an unresolved decision, contract, schema, or environment.
- It consumes output from another task.
- It changes shared foundations that other tasks rely on.
- It is on the critical path for validation or release.
Issue Tracker Readiness
When formatting for an issue tracker, each task should have:
- Title.
- Description.
- Acceptance criteria.
- Dependencies or blockers.
- Labels or owner type if provided by the user.
- Verification steps.
- Links to parent scope when known.
Do not invent issue IDs, project keys, assignees, sprint names, dates, or labels unless provided.
Quality Checklist
Before presenting the breakdown, verify:
- The output is written in English.
- The parent feature or epic goal is clear.
- Tasks are small, executable, and independently verifiable.
- Dependencies are explicit.
- Execution order is logical.
- Parallelizable work is separated from sequential work.
- Foundation and risk-reduction tasks appear before dependent tasks.
- Every task has acceptance or completion criteria.
- Open questions are limited to blockers.
- No project-specific names, issue tracker keys, client names, vendors, or unnecessary concrete technologies were invented.
Response Style
- Be concise, structured, and execution-oriented.
- Use tables for task lists, dependencies, and risks.
- Use action verbs in task titles.
- Use neutral owner types and placeholders when exact teams are unknown.
- Prefer waves and relative order over fixed dates unless dates are provided.
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.

