architectural-alignment
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Establish architectural fit and resolve material scope decisions after Intake is confirmed. Use for Architectural Alignment, Scope Definition, missing or stale context, or unresolved intent in an explicitly requested Bearing lifecycle. Do not use for already-settled current context, design, implementation, independent review, or an unconfirmed repository.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- bearing-liteSkill
- coordinatorSkill
- implementerSkill
- intakeSkill
- integration-engineerSkill
- light-implementerSkill
- onboard-bearingSkill
- planning-and-designSkill
- promptSkill
- requirements-engineerSkill
- reviewerSkill
- scope-definitionSkill
- scribeSkill
- systems-modelerSkill
- test-engineerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Use the requested outcome, confirmed repository and plan directory, prior owner decisions, source evidence, and repository rules.
- Very specific: line 22
Verify the exact root, repository identity, plan directory, and requested scope.
- Distinctive: line 24
Verify source bindings and scoped committed, staged, unstaged, and relevant untracked changes.
- Very specific: line 28
Read canonical architecture, relevant manifests, instructions, entry points, tests, and ownership records.
- Very specific: line 30
Use BRAN with native policy.
- Very specific: line 51
Update the two owned records using templates/workspace.md when needed and repository metadata rules.
- Distinctive: line 54
Verify the write set and hand off only when fit and material intent are settled.
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not implement, delete plan content, or invent retries or agent invocations.
≈ “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
Architectural Alignment and Scope
The Orchestrator runs this once in its controller session, owning workspace.md
and repository-map.md. Establish architectural fit and shared scope before design.
Use the requested outcome, confirmed repository and plan directory, prior owner
decisions, source evidence, and repository rules. Run after Intake is confirmed.
Completed alignment is not repeated unless relevant source changes invalidate
its map or the requested scope changes. Reuse confirmed scope and current evidence.
Algorithm
- Verify the exact root, repository identity, plan directory, and requested
scope. Conflicting identity returns
BLOCKED; never invent a sibling path. - Verify source bindings and scoped committed, staged, unstaged, and relevant untracked changes. Compare recorded revisions and content digests with current inputs; a clean Git status alone does not prove freshness. Refresh affected context only. Missing bindings require fresh evidence.
- Read canonical architecture, relevant manifests, instructions, entry points,
tests, and ownership records; follow evidence into
docs/,src/, andlib/. Use BRAN with native policy; otherwise reportbran_status: unavailable. Bound discovery to the authorized task and affected flows. Never ask the owner for a fact tools can establish, or invent architecture or commands. - Map components, interfaces, data flow, ownership, constraints, and trust boundaries with sources. Explain where the requested work fits; distinguish facts, inferences, and gaps. Do not design missing architecture, activate a specialist automatically, or choose material changes or risk for the owner.
- Track material outcome, scope, authority, risk, and acceptance decisions as dependency-ordered branches. Ask exactly one question whose prerequisites are settled, give the recommended answer and material alternatives, then wait. Challenge contradictions and vague acceptance. Silence is not approval; revisit a settled answer only when scope or conflicting evidence changes it.
- Buffer confirmed decisions in the active session. Do not persist, patch, or
re-render Lifecycle state after each answer. At a completed branch, before
Planning and Design, on handoff/context loss, or owner request, record one
consolidated decision batch using
references/decision-batch.md: its quantity-definitions table andenforced_rule/expected_outcometyping; any gap blocksWORKSPACE_READYas a class C owner question. Each open item must be decided, owner-deferred with a trigger, justified inapplicable, or visibly blocked. Ask for explicit confirmation that shared understanding is reached when prior confirmation does not cover the current scope. - Update the two owned records using
templates/workspace.mdwhen needed and repository metadata rules. Preserve history, bindings, decisions, constraints, and gaps; label validation commands[observed, not run]with their sources. Verify the write set and hand off only when fit and material intent are settled.
Return WORKSPACE_READY, WORKSPACE_RESUMED, NEEDS_EVIDENCE,
OWNER_DECISION_REQUIRED, or BLOCKED with paths, scope, fit, freshness evidence,
confirmed decisions, open items, and next action. Missing facts and pending owner
answers are distinct. Resume only valid context; never start a second scope stage.
Do not implement, delete plan content, or invent retries or agent invocations.
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.

