task-intake
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use at the beginning of a new task. Ensures you fully understand the requirements, boundaries, and acceptance criteria before writing code.
4 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- omidnw/my-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- infragoodboys/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- GodMaking/makecrewtheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- yeaight7/agent-powerupsedited, first seen Jul 27, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- yeaight7/agent-powerups★ 612% same
Wrote their own version · 3
- GodMaking/makecrew★ 1same name
- infragoodboys/claude-skills★ 0same name
- omidnw/my-skills★ 0same 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- agents-mdSkill
- agent-workflow-engineeringSkill
- analyze-architectureSkill
- architecture-auditSkill
- ask-mattSkill
- check-readinessSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- codebase-contextSkill
- decision-memorySkill
- delegation-protocolSkill
- dependency-analysisSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- documentation-maintenanceSkill
- engineering-closeoutSkill
- environment-discoverySkill
- github-pr-workflowSkill
- implementSkill
- interview-meSkill
- parallel-feature-developmentSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- project-contextSkill
- project-retrospectiveSkill
- release-managementSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- synthesize-project-contextSkill
- workflow-definitionSkill
- workflow-runnerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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 8
Never start implementing blindly.
- Distinctive: line 15
What context is missing?: Ask the user for specific files, logs, or environment details if the request is too vague.
- Distinctive: line 28
Only after requirements are clear, choose the stack.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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
Task Intake Protocol
Never start implementing blindly. When you receive a new task, you must force clarification of boundaries and expected outcomes.
Intake Checklist
- What is the goal? Summarize the user's request in your own words.
- What is out of scope? Identify what you are not going to do. If the user asked to fix a button, do not refactor the routing layer.
- How will we test it? Define the validation criteria. Will it be a unit test, a manual UI check, or a curl command?
- What context is missing? Ask the user for specific files, logs, or environment details if the request is too vague.
Anti-Pattern: The Blind Start
Do not say "I will now fix the bug." and immediately edit files. Instead, use a repo-map or grep to confirm the files exist, then state your understanding of the problem. If the user's instruction is ambiguous, explicitly pause and ask them a clarifying question.
Anti-Pattern: Defaulting to the Old Tech Stack on Rebuild/Redo
When the user says "redo this project" (refactor/rewrite), the old project's tech stack is not a requirement. Technology selection must happen AFTER requirements are confirmed — choosing the stack first is deciding for the user. Real correction case: rebuilding an existing project, the assistant wrote the README and .gitignore for the old stack without confirming requirements; the user corrected: "We don't necessarily need the old stack. Choose based on requirements. You haven't even confirmed my requirements."
Correct order (the user expects you to run a SOP, not guess):
interview-me: one question at a time — confirm scope / target platform / constraints / success criteria / out-of-scope, until confidence ≥95% with an explicit yesspec-driven-development: write a spec (tech-stack choice goes in the spec with rejected alternatives and reasons)- Only after requirements are clear, choose the stack; when the stack is free, give one best recommendation + a rejected-alternatives comparison — don't list a menu of options
Trigger: the user says "stack is up to you / you pick / find the best" = authorization to decide the stack, but requirements still come first.
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.