discover
Skill608 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Phase 1 of the prd-taskmaster pipeline: brainstorm-driven discovery. Delegates to superpowers:brainstorming in Interactive Mode (one adaptive question at a time), or self-brainstorms in Autonomous Mode when no user is present. Intercepts before the brainstorming chain hands off to writing-plans — this skill owns the exit. Extracts constraints, calibrates scale (Solo / Team / Enterprise), and advances the pipeline to GENERATE.
57 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- charles-adedotun/sre-plugintheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- rajanrx/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- joeldevz/skynex-pitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/EngramGraphtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- islandhopper81/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- AcKeskin/contexturetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval and 10 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.
LambenthanSkilldaily-arxiv
每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkillexp-eval
实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges
Also in 5 projects that use this
skyllwtSkillexp-pilot-eval
Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.
Also in 4 projects that use this
skyllwtSkillexp-pilot-run
Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.
Also in 4 projects that use this
phanghonghaoSkillposter
HTML/CSS A4 海报生成。从沙龙/活动 Markdown 文件生成科技风 A4 海报 PDF/PNG。Use when user mentions: poster, 海报, 海报生成, make poster, generate poster, 活动海报, 沙龙海报.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +6 more from Lambenthan
- +1 more from skyllwt
Other versions57 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 57
- skyllwt/OmegaWiki★ 1.7ksame name
- DAIR-AutoResearch/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- PKU-DAIR/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- skyllwt/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- suboss87/FDEOps★ 940same name
- zaxbysauce/opencode-swarm★ 519same name
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 518same name
- hsantanna88/clo-author★ 262same name
- hugosantanna/clo-author★ 262same name
- fw-ai/cookbook★ 241same name
47 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- prd-taskmasterSkill
- atlasSkill
- customise-workflowSkill
- execute-fleetSkill
- execute-taskSkill
- expand-tasksSkill
- generateSkill
- goSkill
- handoffSkill
- setupSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 50 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 38
Keep the Interactive versus explicitly authorised Autonomous distinction.
- Very specific: line 43
Call mcp__plugin_prd_go__check_gate(phase="DISCOVER", evidence={}) for diagnostics.
- Distinctive: line 52
Re-entry: if the gate reports violations, report them and stop — it protects against re-running a completed phase or skipping ahead from …
- Very specific: line 83
INTERCEPT POINT: when brainstorming signals readiness to chain to writing-plans, STOP.
- Very specific: line 97
Read the goal statement from skill args or session-context/CLAUDE-soul-purpose.md.
- Very specific: line 99
Read session-context/CLAUDE-activeContext.md for project context.
- Very specific: line 100
Write discovery notes directly to session-context/discovery-{timestamp}.md answering every question the interactive flow would ask:
- Distinctive: line 112
Commit the discovery file.
- Very specific: line 123
After brainstorming completes, present via AskUserQuestion:
- Distinctive: line 137
If user says "refine" → ask what to change, update the summary, re-present.
- Distinctive: line 138
If user approves → capture as the discovery output and proceed to exit gate.
- Very specific: line 142
Write the discovery summary to session-context/discovery-{timestamp}.md and commit it.
- Distinctive: line 148
If brainstorming (or self-brainstorming) produces thin answers, fill gaps with reasonable assumptions instead of forcing extra questions:
- Distinctive: line 156
Document every assumption in the discovery summary so GENERATE can surface them in the spec.
- Distinctive: line 161
Before moving to GENERATE, explicitly extract and list all constraints mentioned during discovery.
- Distinctive: line 196
After approval (Interactive) or commit (Autonomous), constraints captured, and scale classified:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 50 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
Phase 1: Discover
Declarative phase skill. Invoked by the prd-taskmaster orchestrator when
current_phase is DISCOVER. Never called directly by a user.
The one rule: invoke superpowers:brainstorming for discovery, intercept
before it chains to writing-plans — we control the exit, not the brainstorm
skill.
Task provider routing comes first
For atlas-kanban, perform the discovery, approval, constraint extraction and
scope calibration below, but do not call the file-mode check_gate/advance_phase
operations. Return the approved summary and constraints to the provider-aware
orchestrator for phases/GENERATE.md; no task store is created during discovery.
Keep the Interactive versus explicitly authorised Autonomous distinction. The
file-mode pipeline transitions below apply only to taskmaster-file.
Entry gate
Call
mcp__plugin_prd_go__check_gate(phase="DISCOVER", evidence={})for diagnostics.check_gateis an EXIT gate: it verifies the evidence to advance, not to enter. On first DISCOVER entry you have no evidence yet (the User Approval / Self-Approval Gate below producesuser_approved=trueORauto_classification=CLEAR with assumptions_documented), so agate_passed: falsehere is EXPECTED — the state machine's legal transitions already guarantee only legal entry.- First entry (no evidence yet): note the result and continue with the Procedure.
- Re-entry: if the gate reports violations, report them and stop — it protects against re-running a completed phase or skipping ahead from SETUP.
- Detect execution context. If any of the following signals are present,
switch to Autonomous Mode:
.claude/ralph-loop.local.mdexists in the project root- An
auto-enter/auto-approvedaemon is running against this session - The skill was invoked with an explicit
--autonomousflag - Parent orchestrator is a cron,
/pentest-wtf, or/ralph-loopOtherwise proceed in Interactive Mode (default).
Discovery checklist
Copy into your response before running the procedure:
DISCOVERY CHECKLIST:
- [ ] Mode detected (Interactive vs Autonomous)
- [ ] Goal captured from skill args or soul purpose
- [ ] Adaptive questions completed (one at a time)
- [ ] Constraints extracted and listed
- [ ] Scale classified (Solo / Team / Enterprise)
- [ ] Discovery summary captured for GENERATE phase
- [ ] User approved (Interactive) or summary committed (Autonomous)Interactive Mode (default — user present)
- Take the user's goal / description from the skill invocation args.
- Invoke
superpowers:brainstormingwith the goal as input. - Brainstorming runs its adaptive question flow — one domain-agnostic question at a time. Let it drive the Q&A rhythm.
- INTERCEPT POINT: when brainstorming signals readiness to chain to
writing-plans, STOP. Do NOT let it invokewriting-plans. Capture the brainstorm output (design, requirements, decisions) into local state instead. The prd-taskmaster orchestrator owns the handoff — notsuperpowers:brainstorming. - Present the summary to the user for approval via
AskUserQuestion(see User Approval Gate below).
Autonomous Mode (no user present)
Do NOT invoke superpowers:brainstorming — it blocks on user input and
will stall an unattended session. Instead, self-brainstorm using this
template:
- Read the goal statement from skill args or
session-context/CLAUDE-soul-purpose.md. - Read
session-context/CLAUDE-activeContext.mdfor project context. - Write discovery notes directly to
session-context/discovery-{timestamp}.mdanswering every question the interactive flow would ask:- Who is this for?
- What problem does it solve?
- What are the success metrics?
- What are the constraints (tech stack, timeline, team, budget, integrations, regulatory)?
- What's explicitly out of scope?
- What's the scale (Solo / Team / Enterprise)?
- Self-approve: the skill acts as both interrogator and approver. Document assumptions explicitly so the user can audit them on wake-up.
- Commit the discovery file. The git history becomes the audit trail — if the user later disagrees, they can reset to that commit and re-run.
Autonomous mode is first-class, not degraded. A well-run autonomous discovery produces a spec the user reads on wake-up and says "yes, that's what I meant" without edits. If you find yourself needing to ask more than two questions the user didn't anticipate, the discovery is under-specified — stop and write a handoff note instead of proceeding.
User Approval Gate (Interactive Mode)
After brainstorming completes, present via AskUserQuestion:
Discovery Complete:
Goal: [one sentence]
Audience: [who it's for]
Approach: [proposed solution]
Key decisions: [list]
Constraints: [known limitations]
Scale: [Solo | Team | Enterprise]
Proceed to generate spec? (or refine further)- If user says "refine" → ask what to change, update the summary, re-present.
- If user approves → capture as the discovery output and proceed to exit gate.
Self-Approval Gate (Autonomous Mode)
Write the discovery summary to session-context/discovery-{timestamp}.md and
commit it. No interactive approval is required, but assumptions MUST be
explicit in the written summary so the user can audit on wake-up.
Smart Defaults
If brainstorming (or self-brainstorming) produces thin answers, fill gaps with reasonable assumptions instead of forcing extra questions:
- Target audience: small team (< 10 users) unless specified otherwise.
- Timeline: MVP in 4–6 weeks.
- Tech stack: inferred from requirements — do not pick arbitrarily.
- Scale: moderate (hundreds of users, not millions).
Document every assumption in the discovery summary so GENERATE can surface them in the spec.
Constraint Extraction (MANDATORY before advancing)
Before moving to GENERATE, explicitly extract and list all constraints mentioned during discovery. Emit this block:
CONSTRAINTS CAPTURED:
- Tech stack: [e.g., "must use Python", "React frontend", "no new dependencies"]
- Timeline: [e.g., "MVP in 2 weeks", "no deadline"]
- Team: [e.g., "solo developer", "3-person team"]
- Budget: [e.g., "free tier only", "$500/month max"]
- Integration: [e.g., "must work with existing Postgres DB", "connects to Stripe"]
- Regulatory: [e.g., "HIPAA compliant", "GDPR", "none specified"]
- Domain-specific: [e.g., "authorized pentest scope: 10.0.0.0/24 only",
"learning goal: intermediate level"]Present this list alongside the discovery summary. These constraints MUST be passed to GENERATE — they inform spec content, task decomposition depth, and acceptance criteria. If a constraint is mentioned in discovery but missing from the spec, that's a bug.
Scope Calibration
Infer project scale from discovery answers and set decomposition guidance:
| Scale | Signal | Task Cap | Subtask Depth |
| Solo | "just me", "side project", "learning" | 8–12 tasks | 2–3 subtasks each |
| Team | "small team", "MVP", "product", "startup" | 12–20 tasks | 3–5 subtasks each |
| Enterprise | "compliance", "multiple teams", "platform" | 20–30 tasks | 5–8 subtasks each |
Pass the scale classification to GENERATE so task count is calibrated, not arbitrary.
Exit gate
After approval (Interactive) or commit (Autonomous), constraints captured, and scale classified:
- Call
mcp__plugin_prd_go__advance_phase(expected_current="DISCOVER", target="GENERATE", evidence={"user_approved": True, "constraints_captured": True, "scale": "<Solo|Team|Enterprise>", "assumptions_documented": True}). The call atomically transitionspipeline.jsonfrom DISCOVER to GENERATE. Theexpected_currentfield is the compare-and-swap guard;evidenceis stored underphase_evidence[GENERATE]for audit. - Return control to the orchestrator (
prd-taskmasterskill). Do NOT invoke GENERATE directly — the orchestrator re-readscurrent_phaseand routes.
Red flags (stop and report, do not paper over)
- "Brainstorming wants to call writing-plans — I'll let it" → NO. Intercept.
The prd-taskmaster pipeline owns the exit, not
superpowers:brainstorming. - "User hasn't answered, I'll pick for them in Interactive Mode" → NO. If stalled, ask one more targeted question or write a handoff note — don't silently self-approve in Interactive Mode.
- "Autonomous mode — I'll invoke superpowers:brainstorming anyway" → NO. It blocks on user input and will stall the session. Self-brainstorm with the template above.
- "Constraints are obvious, I'll skip the CONSTRAINTS CAPTURED block" → NO. GENERATE reads this block — missing constraints become missing spec sections downstream.
- "I can call advance_phase without check_gate" → NO. Gate first, always.
Non-exits
This skill does not use explicit process termination. A hard block reports the reason and returns control to the orchestrator; the orchestrator decides whether to surface to the user.
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.

