gproject-discovery
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Collects and structures initial project information from multiple sources. Use when: dispatched by gproject-orchestrator Phase 0. NOT for: direct user invocation — always called through orchestrator.
In this repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- autodoc-analystSkill
- autodoc-architectSkill
- autodoc-assemblerSkill
- autodoc-orchestratorSkill
- autodoc-scannerSkill
- autodoc-writerSkill
- brainstormSkill
- brd-creatorSkill
- caveman-modeSkill
- changelogSkill
- claude-md-managementSkill
- code-ai-reviewSkill
- code-boss-reviewSkill
- code-mobx-store-reviewSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-style-reviewSkill
- code-verifierSkill
- commitSkill
- constraint-driven-developmentSkill
- context-collectorSkill
- db-migrateSkill
- dependency-updateSkill
- deploySkill
- doubt-driven-developmentSkill
- feature-analyzerSkill
- feature-devSkill
- fsd-creatorSkill
- gproject-consistency-checkerSkill
- gproject-orchestratorSkill
- gproject-patterns-researcherSkill
- gproject-plannerSkill
- gproject-problem-definerSkill
- gproject-spec-writerSkill
- gproject-stack-advisorSkill
- hookifySkill
- iagoSkill
- interviewerSkill
- interviewSkill
- issue-analyzerSkill
- job-documenterSkill
- job-orchestratorSkill
- perf-checkSkill
- plan-gatekeeperSkill
- prd-creatorSkill
- pr-issue-documenterSkill
- pr-review-commentsSkill
- prSkill
- pushSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-backendSkill
- review-clean-codeSkill
- review-core-boundariesSkill
- review-flow-graphSkill
- review-frontend-conventionsSkill
- review-frontendSkill
- review-greptileSkill
- review-highloadSkill
- review-logicSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Very specific: line 107
Write artifacts/discovery-brief.md with this structure:
≈ “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.
Files
gproject-discovery
Purpose
Gather raw project information from all available sources, structure it into a unified discovery brief. This is the foundation — every downstream decision depends on the quality of discovery.
Iron Laws
| # | Law |
| 1 | NEVER assume information not explicitly provided or discovered |
| 2 | ALWAYS distinguish facts from assumptions — label each |
| 3 | If a critical area has no data, return NEEDS_CONTEXT — don't fill gaps with guesses |
| 4 | Web research MUST cite sources |
| 5 | Codebase analysis MUST reference actual file paths |
Input Contract
task: "Collect project discovery data"
mode: "new_project" | "task_in_project"
user_input: "<original user request text>"
uploaded_docs: [<file paths if any>]
repo_path: "<path if task_in_project>"
interview_results: "<from interview skill, if already run>"Output Contract
status: "DONE" | "NEEDS_CONTEXT"
summary: "<3-5 sentences: what was found, key gaps, confidence level>"
new_decisions:
D_mode: "new_project | task_in_project"
D_domain: "<business domain>"
D_audience: "<target users>"
D_scale_estimate: "<rough scale: personal/team/startup/enterprise>"
artifact_path: "jobs/<job>/artifacts/discovery-brief.md"If NEEDS_CONTEXT:
status: "NEEDS_CONTEXT"
questions:
- id: "Q1"
text: "<question>"
options:
A: "<option>"
B: "<option>"
C: "<option>"
D: "<option>"
why: "<why this matters for downstream phases>"Workflow
Step 1: Parse User Input
Extract from the user's original request:
- What they want to build/implement
- Any constraints mentioned (budget, timeline, team size)
- Any technical preferences mentioned
- Target audience / users mentioned
Step 2: Source-Specific Collection
Mode: new_project
- User input analysis — extract all explicit and implied requirements
- Uploaded documents — parse any attached files (briefs, notes, mockups, transcripts)
- Web research — search for:
- Similar products / competitors (max 5)
- Market context and trends
- Common technical approaches for this type of project
- Gap identification — list what's missing for confident decision-making
Mode: task_in_project
- User input analysis — extract the specific task/feature request
- Codebase scan (via context-collector) — gather:
- Project structure (directories, key files)
- Technology stack (package.json, requirements.txt, Dockerfile, etc.)
- Architecture patterns in use
- Existing documentation (README, docs/, ADRs)
- Related code areas (files likely affected by this task)
- Existing docs — parse project documentation for context
- Web research — best practices for the specific task within the detected stack
- Gap identification — what's unclear about the existing codebase or requirements
Step 3: Structure Discovery Brief
Write artifacts/discovery-brief.md with this structure:
# Discovery Brief: <Project/Task Name>
## Source Summary
- User input: <what was provided>
- Documents analyzed: <list>
- Codebase scanned: <yes/no, scope>
- Web research: <topics covered>
## Project/Task Description
<Clear 2-3 paragraph description of what needs to be built/done>
## Key Facts (confirmed)
- <fact 1> [source: user input / document / codebase]
- <fact 2> [source: ...]
## Assumptions (need validation)
- <assumption 1> — confidence: high/medium/low
- <assumption 2> — confidence: ...
## Stakeholders & Users
- Primary users: <who>
- Secondary users: <who>
- Stakeholders: <who decides>
## Existing Context (task_in_project only)
- Tech stack: <detected>
- Architecture: <detected patterns>
- Related components: <list with file paths>
- Existing patterns to follow: <list>
## Competitive / Market Context (new_project only)
- Similar products: <list with brief notes>
- Differentiators mentioned: <list>
- Market trends: <relevant>
## Constraints Identified
- Budget: <if mentioned>
- Timeline: <if mentioned>
- Team: <size, skills if mentioned>
- Technical: <any mentioned constraints>
## Open Questions
- <question 1> — impacts: <which downstream decisions>
- <question 2> — impacts: ...
## Confidence Assessment
- Overall completeness: <high/medium/low>
- Areas needing more data: <list>Step 4: Return Summary to Orchestrator
Compose compact summary (3-5 sentences) covering:
- What the project/task is about
- Key constraints discovered
- Confidence level
- Critical gaps that need resolution
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.

