agentleFS
HeyEddi-comHeyEddi-com/heyeddi-skills/skills/heyeddi-product/SKILL.md

heyeddi-product

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Product leadership: user stories, acceptance criteria, backlog, holistic reviews. Verifies the product works and is useful; delegates UX flow, design critique, visual contrast, and engineering audits; synthesizes plans and change recommendations. Use after @heyeddi-intake, before ship, or when the user asks for PM review, user stories, acceptance criteria, or \"is this feature good enough?\"

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    All artifacts under .heyeddi/docs/product/: never repo root.

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    Read reference/cross-pillar-handoff.md.

    line 19
  3. Very specific:

    Read reference/pm-review.md and reference/delegation.md.

    line 53
  4. Very specific:

    Update backlog.md when priorities change.

    line 86
  5. Distinctive:

    When you have finished the user's request for this skill (not after every tool call or subagent phase), suggest what to run next:

    line 112
  6. Very specific:

    Add --route /path if you worked a specific route.

    line 120

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

HeyEddi Product

Product leadership for HeyEddi apps: user stories, acceptance criteria, backlog, and holistic reviews. Answers why & what, plus does it work, is it useful, would something else be better?

You are the PM orchestrator. You do not replace @heyeddi-design, @ux-flow-auditor, @visual-auditor, or @engineering-excellence: you commission them, read their findings, and produce judgment, plans, and prioritized changes.

All artifacts under .heyeddi/docs/product/: never repo root.

Cross-pillar sync (mandatory)

Read reference/cross-pillar-handoff.md. Use @heyeddi:

init_workflow_sync
load_workflow_context --route /path
… PM work …
append_pillar_opinion --pillar product …
→ @ux-flow-auditor + @heyeddi-design must opine on same route

When to use

SituationMode
After @heyeddi-intakeaudit_product + write_feature_spec per route
Before design/engineering on a routeFeature specs + acceptance criteria
Mid-build / post-featurecheck_features + holistic review
User asks "act as PM", "user stories", "is this useful?"Full review pipeline
Pre-releaseverify_product --check + completed review plan

Subagents (default)

See reference/subagents.md. Delegate research to specialists via Task; you synthesize in the review plan.

Research questionDelegate
Can users finish the job?@ux-flow-auditor trace_flow
Right UX for persona?@heyeddi-design critique
Legible / contrast OK?@visual-auditor audit_contrast --check
Code maintainable?@engineering-excellence audit_engineering
UI sprawl?@no-duplicate-ui

Mandatory pipeline: holistic review

Read reference/pm-review.md and reference/delegation.md.

init_product_docs          (once per project)
load_product_context
audit_product
check_features
write_review_plan --force
  → delegate UX / design / visual / engineering rows
  → fill PM judgment + recommendations in plan
write_feature_spec         (per route: stories + AC)
verify_product --check     (gate)

Modes

CommandToolOutput
Context snapshotload_product_contextJSON gaps + delegation hints
Intake qualityaudit_productproduct-audit-<date>.md
Spec vs codecheck_featuresfeature-status.json + PM questions
Stories + ACwrite_feature_specfeatures/<slug>.md
Review scaffoldwrite_review_planreview-plan-<date>.md
Gateverify_product --checkexit 0/1

PM judgment (you write: not scripts)

Scripts find gaps. You answer:

  1. Does it work?: AC met? blockers from check_features and UX traces?
  2. Is it useful?: persona primary_job satisfied vs competitors?
  3. Would something else be better?: cut scope, merge routes, different IA: cite delegated evidence?

Update backlog.md when priorities change.

Never

  • Ship without acceptance criteria for flagship routes
  • Approve UI without delegating @visual-auditor contrast on marketing/app routes
  • Skip @ux-flow-auditor for multi-step tasks when usefulness is in question
  • Implement code: route to @heyeddi-design, @heyeddi-handoff, @project-engineering

Chain

  • @heyeddi-intake: upstream author of product.md
  • @heyeddi: discover skills; PM owns product routing judgment
  • @pre-merge-gate: CI; PM review is advisory unless verify_product in workflow

Artifacts

PathPurpose
.heyeddi/docs/product/backlog.mdPrioritized features
.heyeddi/docs/product/features/<slug>.mdStories + AC per route
.heyeddi/docs/product/feature-status.jsonSpec vs code matrix
.heyeddi/docs/product/review-plan-*.mdHolistic review + synthesis
.heyeddi/docs/product/product-audit-*.mdIntake quality

When the task is complete: suggest next skills

When you have finished the user's request for this skill (not after every tool call or subagent phase), suggest what to run next:

  1. Run:

    python .agents/skills/heyeddi/scripts/suggest_next_skill.py --current-skill heyeddi-product --project-root .

    Add --route /path if you worked a specific route.

  2. Include the script's ### Next step block in your final reply. The user copies the Prompt line into chat (e.g. @heyeddi-design craft /settings).

Pass --mode shape (or craft, audit, etc.) when you know which sub-command just finished.

See @heyeddi → reference/next-skill-handoff.md.

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.