intake
Skill340 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when preparing an asynchronous discovery questionnaire for one external recipient whose expertise the sender needs, including clarifying the recipient or needed decisions before drafting; not live interrogation, survey analytics or repository onboarding.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 32 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
Read templates/questionnaire.md only on the drafting branch, then replace its authoring fields with the actual recipient-specific content.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 32 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
Intake
Turn the sender's knowledge gaps into one recipient-specific Markdown questionnaire for someone else to answer asynchronously. External means a recipient other than the current user, including a colleague; it does not require a different organization. The current user is the sender, not a substitute for the recipient's expertise.
Scope and authority
Use supplied conversation and documents as context. This workflow needs no network, credentials, hosted model calls or integrations. Discover the active working directory and any requested output location from the current environment before writing; do not assume a repository layout or an upstream filename. Read only supplied relevant local material. The deliverable is a draft for the sender to hand off: no sending, tracker creation, recipient lookup, scheduling or response analytics.
A live interview with the current user, an onboarding/tutoring request, or analysis of survey responses is a different task. Do not recast it as intake. If several recipients are named, select one with the sender before drafting rather than producing a generic form or several questionnaires.
1. Select the branch
Extract two things from available context:
- Recipient: a named person or specific role, plus their expertise and enough audience context to choose vocabulary. Use the relationship when supplied; a personal name is not required.
- Needed outcomes: the concrete decisions or facts the sender needs this recipient to help resolve, and how the answers will inform those outcomes.
Missing metadata branch: If either is missing or materially ambiguous, ask the current user only for the missing recipient/expertise or needed decisions/facts in one concise exchange. For example: “Who will receive this, what do they know about the topic, and which decisions or facts do you need their help with?” Omit parts already answered. Ask which recipient to target if necessary. Stop this turn after that clarification; do not manufacture an audience or a generic questionnaire. This branch is complete when the missing fields and the question requesting them are explicit. Resume with the drafting branch when supplied.
Drafting branch: When both are concrete, draft immediately. Do not make the sender answer questions whose answers are the reason for contacting the recipient. Unknown domain facts become recipient questions, not sender prerequisites. Missing sender name, deadline or effort does not block drafting: use “Sender” for an unnamed sender and omit unknown optional logistics or label them unknown. Never invent a deadline, completion-time estimate, relationship, promised confidentiality or answer-use commitment.
2. Map outcomes to questions
For drafting, read references/question-design.md for question design and the sender-only coverage format. Assign each input decision/fact an outcome ID. Split compound requests into separately traceable outcomes without losing the original request. Identify the recipient knowledge needed for each, then assign stable question IDs.
Put high-consequence or blocking questions first: an async recipient may only answer the opening section. Use plain language calibrated to this recipient's expertise. One question asks one idea; separate policy, exceptions, quantities and rationale when they require different answers. Keep neutral wording and avoid presupposing unknown domain answers. Related questions may share a theme, but theme grouping must not bury a higher-priority decision beneath optional detail.
This step is complete when every outcome has at least one explicit, answerable question. A catch-all cannot count as coverage. If an outcome is outside this recipient's known expertise, keep a targeted question inviting a partial answer or the appropriate source; mark the expertise limit in the sender matrix rather than silently dropping the outcome or inventing another recipient.
3. Draft the recipient document
Read templates/questionnaire.md only on the drafting branch, then replace its authoring fields with the actual recipient-specific content. It supplies the required recipient layout, not a form to ship with placeholders.
Include context, purpose, from/to, how answers will be used, importance-ordered one-idea questions, and an answer stub directly beneath each question. Explicitly welcome partial answers, “I don't know” and uncertain responses. Explain why a question matters only where that helps the recipient answer. Include a closing catch-all with its own stub. Retain deadline/effort only when actually supplied; none is required. Keep the sender's coverage matrix out of the recipient document, including hidden comments or appendices.
Write exactly one questionnaire Markdown file to the requested destination, or intake-<topic>.md in the active working directory when no destination is supplied. Use a short topic slug; inspect an existing target before writing and preserve unrelated content, selecting an unused descriptive filename rather than overwriting it. Do not create ancillary questionnaires, trackers or response stores. If the destination is unavailable or cannot be written, report the exact missing filesystem prerequisite and the unsaved state; do not claim a delivered file.
4. Hand off to the sender
Report the questionnaire path and give the sender-only coverage matrix in the chat, separately labeled as not for forwarding. It maps every input outcome to final question IDs and flags any expertise limitation. State which optional logistics remain unknown or were omitted. Do not claim the recipient has seen, approved or answered it.
Drafting is complete only when the single recipient document exists, all required framing and answer stubs are present, every input outcome maps to a concrete final question, and no invented logistics or recipient-held answers appear. A well-written subset or an empty template is not completion.
Package references
- For drafting, references/question-design.md supplies outcome coverage and question-splitting rules; templates/questionnaire.md supplies recipient layout.
- For adaptation history, licensing or a proposed upstream refresh, read references/upstream/provenance.md and the package-local
LICENSE. No upstream synchronization is automatic.
Other versions33 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 33
- openai/plugins★ 7.4ksame name
- skillberry-ai/cap-evolve★ 67same name
- Consortium-team/project-creator★ 17same name
- bmtrnavsky/disciplined-vibe-coding★ 11same name
- ndisisnd/msg★ 6same name
- tonydzi/second-brain-starter-kit★ 6same name
- stevehansen/eidet★ 4same name
- alphazede/bearing-lite★ 3same name
- ghvinashvili/specagent★ 2same name
- iskron-ai/skills★ 2same name
23 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use plan, triage and 7 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.
BlockSkillplan
Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Google CloudSkilltriage
Gather context on a change or bug and plan the implementation.
Also in 4 projects that use this
AWSSkillretro
Conduct a retrospective on a coding session.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillbuild
Build the TypeSpec Rust emitter from source. Run this after cloning the repo, after pulling changes, or when TypeScript source files have been modified.
Also in 3 projects that use this
VercelSkilldeploy
Deploy applications to Vercel. Use when the user says "deploy", "deploy to Vercel", "push to production", "deploy my app", or "go live".
Also in 3 projects that use this
VercelSkillsetup
Set up Vercel CLI and project configuration. Use when the user says "set up Vercel", "configure Vercel", "link to Vercel", or "vercel init".
Also in 4 projects that use this
In this repository94 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adr-writerSkill
- agent-builderSkill
- animateSkill
- api-docs-generatorSkill
- appraiseSkill
- architecture-diagramSkill
- architecture-reviewerSkill
- arxiv-figuresSkill
- arxiv-packageSkill
- arxiv-preflightSkill
- benchmark-runnerSkill
- changelog-composerSkill
- chart-claritySkill
- citation-auditSkill
- codebase-advisorSkill
- code-refinerSkill
- competitive-analyzerSkill
- concept-to-imageSkill
- debug-investigatorSkill
- decision-mapSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- devils-advocateSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- engineering-retroSkill
- env-validatorSkill
- estimate-calibratorSkill
- feasibility-assessorSkill
- figure-rhetoricSkill
- figure-table-qualitySkill
- filesystemSkill
- githubSkill
- gpu-optimizerSkill
- handoffSkill
- html-presentationSkill
- html-videoSkill
- humanizeSkill
- idea-validatorSkill
- immuneSkill
- kg-builderSkill
- launch-videoSkill
- learning-workspaceSkill
- lightpanda-browserSkill
- linkedin-post-styleSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- manuscript-provenanceSkill
- manuscript-reviewSkill
- manuscript-typographySkill
- market-analyzerSkill
- marp-slidesSkill
- mcp-to-skillSkill
- md-to-pdfSkill
- migration-risk-analyzerSkill
- milestone-runnerSkill
- module-deepeningSkill
- notebooklmSkill
- package-evaluatorSkill
- package-optimizerSkill
- paper-to-skillSkill
- plan-promptsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

