agentleFS
hollandkevinthollandkevint/thinkhaven-method-kit/skills/preflight/SKILL.md

preflight

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

7-question clarity exercise before any AI session or major decision. Pen-and-paper discipline adapted for interactive use. Activates on "preflight", "before we start", "clarify my thinking", "what am I trying to do", "help me think through this", "I'm about to start", or "pre-session checklist."

47 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use adr, ship and 9 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.
  • asterkinSkill

    adr

    Create Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following project standards. Guides template usage, process, and best practices for documenting architecturally significant decisions.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AWSSkill

    ship

    Finalize dev work on an issue branch — update docs, push, and open a PR.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    report

    Turn an exploration (threads, findings, charts) into a single Markdown report — note, blog post, executive summary, KPI dashboard, slide brief, or multi-section analytical report, with embedded charts.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Google CloudSkill

    triage

    Gather context on a change or bug and plan the implementation.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    status

    Case status summary by audience — client-facing (plain language), internal (for the professor), or court-ready (formal caption format per local rules). Same facts, different framing and depth. Use when a student needs to update the client, brief the professor, or prepare a court status report.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GitHubSkill

    refactor

    Surgical code refactoring to improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers extracting functions, renaming variables, breaking down god functions, improving type safety, eliminating code smells, and applying design patterns. Less drastic than repo-rebuilder; use for gradual improvements.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 42 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask for the outcome, not the task.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    If the user gives a task, ask: "That's what you're doing.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Ask: "What happens if you succeed?

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    If it's not specific enough to verify, push back: "How would someone else know this was done?"

    line 32
  5. Distinctive:

    Ask: "If this goes badly, what does that look like?

    line 38
  6. Distinctive:

    Ask: "What would a new person on this project not know that would bite them?"

    line 46
  7. Distinctive:

    Ask: "If you had to break this into chunks, what are they?

    line 52
  8. Distinctive:

    Ask: "What part of this keeps you up at night?

    line 58
  9. Distinctive:

    After all 7 questions, produce a preflight brief:

    line 62

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 42 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

The 7 Questions

Walk the user through each question sequentially. Do NOT skip ahead. Do NOT accept vague answers. Push back on anything that isn't specific enough to act on.

1. What am I actually trying to accomplish?

Ask for the outcome, not the task. "Build a dashboard" is a task. "Enable regional managers to compare quarterly performance without waiting for the analytics team" is an outcome.

If the user gives a task, ask: "That's what you're doing. What changes in the world when it's done?"

2. Why does this matter?

Consequence of success AND failure. Both sides. If the user can't articulate why failure matters, the work might not matter enough to do.

Ask: "What happens if you succeed? What happens if you don't do this at all?"

3. What does "done" look like?

Specific, observable description. Not "a good dashboard" but "a self-serve report that 5 regional managers use weekly without asking the data team for help."

If it's not specific enough to verify, push back: "How would someone else know this was done?"

4. What does "wrong" look like?

This is the most important question. Name the failure modes. What would make this a waste of time? What would make it actively harmful?

Ask: "If this goes badly, what does that look like? What's the worst version of 'done'?"

CRITICAL: Most people skip this question. Don't let them. Failure modes are where the real thinking happens.

5. What do I already know that I haven't written down?

Institutional knowledge, context, prior attempts, political dynamics, constraints nobody documents.

Ask: "What would a new person on this project not know that would bite them?"

6. What are the pieces?

Decomposition and dependencies. What are the 3-7 major components? What depends on what? What's the critical path?

Ask: "If you had to break this into chunks, what are they? Which ones can't start until others finish?"

7. What's the hard part?

Where does uncertainty live? What haven't you figured out yet? What scares you about this?

Ask: "What part of this keeps you up at night? Where's the risk you can't control?"

Output

After all 7 questions, produce a preflight brief:

# Preflight Brief: [Topic]
Date: [date]

## Outcome
[Answer to Q1 — one sentence]

## Stakes
- Success: [Q2 success side]
- Failure: [Q2 failure side]

## Definition of Done
[Q3 — specific, observable]

## Failure Modes
[Q4 — numbered list]

## Context & Constraints
[Q5 — what's not written down]

## Components & Dependencies
[Q6 — decomposition with critical path noted]

## Hard Parts
[Q7 — where uncertainty lives]

## Recommended First Step
[Your recommendation based on the hard parts]

Principle

Clarity you bring to AI > clarity AI can generate for you. This exercise forces the user to think before the AI thinks for them.

Based on Nate Jones' Human Prompt Preflight framework.

Next step

Plan is clear → run grill-me to pressure-test it. Problem still fuzzy → run problem-framing to diagnose before you scope.


Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Full Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.