team-design
Skill11 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use for drafting technical designs with independent review.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studiotheir own version, first seen May 3, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- create-team-skillSkill
- version-bumpSkill
- team-code-reviewSkill
- team-fixSkill
- team-implementSkill
- team-migrateSkill
- team-planSkill
- team-prSkill
- team-questionSkill
- team-researchSkill
- team-security-reviewSkill
- teamSkill
- team-structureSkill
- team-updateSkill
- team-worktreeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 8 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.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Before this operation, read artifact schema.
- Very specific: line 9
Before each consuming step, read its linked shared rules.
- Distinctive: line 10
If a required read fails, stop that step and report its resolved path.
- Distinctive: line 12
Before each dispatch or retry, read host dispatch and supply its resolved installed paths.
- Distinctive: line 18
Before finalizing prose you author, read the writing standards.
- Distinctive: line 20
No mid-run prompt fires.
- Very specific: line 32
Printed a path: use it as $ARGUMENTS; announce it when no explicit arg was given.
- Very specific: line 34
Printed nothing: do not hard-error. Fire AskUserQuestion with a Setup header and labeled options:
- Very specific: line 42
Use the directory resolved in ## Input.
- Very specific: line 43
If $ARGUMENTS/6-design.md already exists, skip to step 3 — never re-draft an existing design (durable state rules).
- Very specific: line 49
Design review gate: Run "<team-skill-dir>/scripts/design-review-status.sh" "$ARGUMENTS".
- Very specific: line 76
When it returns DONE, a fresh round runs.
≈ “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
Before this operation, read artifact schema.
Before each consuming step, read its linked shared rules. Resolve links from this installed SKILL.md directory.
If a required read fails, stop that step and report its resolved path. Never use checkout fallback or recursive loading.
Before each dispatch or retry, read host dispatch and supply its resolved installed paths.
Before review dispatch, supply the installed plugin root, the resolved skills/team/references/design-reviewer.md path, the absolute installed skills/team/ directory as the base of that brief's links, and the resolved paths of the manuals its ## Review brief links, all in skills/team/references/: code-reviewer.md, code-standards.md, design-template.md, decisions.md, findings.md, writing.md, and cross-model-review.md when the prompt carries ## External review input. Require reads before work.
Team Design
Before finalizing prose you author, read the writing standards. Relay completed review reports unchanged.
No mid-run prompt fires.
Input
$ARGUMENTS is the artifact directory docs/plans/<id>/; if empty, the
discovery command resolves it. Resolve <team-skill-dir> to the absolute directory containing
skills/team/SKILL.md. From the repository root, run:
"<team-skill-dir>/discover-topic.sh" "${ARGUMENTS:-}" "5-research.md"- Printed a path: use it as
$ARGUMENTS; announce it when no explicit arg was given. - Printed nothing: do not hard-error. Fire
AskUserQuestionwith aSetupheader and labeled options:- Run the producer — run
/team-research docs/plans/<id>/to produce5-research.md. - Give a path — the user supplies the
docs/plans/<id>/directory.
- Run the producer — run
Execution
- Use the directory resolved in
## Input. - If
$ARGUMENTS/6-design.mdalready exists, skip to step 3 — never re-draft an existing design (durable state rules). Otherwise dispatchdesign-author; it writes$ARGUMENTS/6-design.mdwith frontmatterrevision: 0. Go to step 3 only when it returnsDONE, or, inline, when the body's## ReturnreachesDONE. Route any other return per host dispatch. Design review gate. Run
"<team-skill-dir>/scripts/design-review-status.sh" "$ARGUMENTS". Exit 0 (passed): skip to step 4 — never re-review a passed design. Exit 1 (pending): its second field<n>is this round's number. Exit 2: stop and report its stderr.Each round:
a. Cross-model pass. Read the cross-model review and run its
## Design-review pass(gate:TEAM_DISABLE_CROSS_MODEL). Any skip continues with the reviewer alone; the pass never blocks the gate. b. Review. Read the## Review brieffrom the design reviewer brief, substitute the artifact directory, attach the paths named at the top of this file, and give it to a read-onlyExploresubagent in a fresh context window. c. Record. Write the reviewer's report verbatim to a scratch file outside$ARGUMENTSwith the Write tool, then runnode "<team-skill-dir>/scripts/record-design-review.mjs" --dir "$ARGUMENTS" --report <report-file>. Its JSON line names theroundandverdict. Exit 3 is an unparseable verdict (below); any other non-zero exit halts loudly with its stderr. d. Act on the verdict:- APPROVE or COMMENT — the review passes. Advance.
- REQUEST CHANGES — re-dispatch
design-authorwith the reviewer's findings verbatim; it re-drafts and incrementsrevision: <n+1>. When it returnsDONE, a fresh round runs. No round cap; the loop ends on the verdict. - Unparseable verdict or reviewer crash — retry the review once with the error; on second failure, halt loudly. Fail closed — never advance on a missing verdict (verified results rules).
- Stop once
$ARGUMENTS/6-design.mdexists anddesign-review-status.shexits 0.
Report design path and tell the user:
"Next: run /team-structure docs/plans/<id>/"
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.

