whiteboard
Skill4 starsChanged 10 months agoMITView on GitHub
Lightweight planning space for rough ideas and exploration. Detects existing docs structure (ADR, design, plans) and creates temporary whiteboard docs in docs/whiteboards/ that can be refined into formal docs later. Use during Planning, Brainstorming or discussing changes/modifications mid-plan.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nearmap/shipyardtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- edenfunf/reelmimictheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- Johnwang688/jarvistheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Curious-Keeper/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- markphelps/agent-pluginstheir own version, first seen Sep 28, 2026
- FinnovateIo/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 5, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- edenfunf/reelmimic★ 1.8ksame name
- FinnovateIo/skills★ 8same name
- markphelps/agent-plugins★ 5same name
- Curious-Keeper/skills★ 1same name
- nearmap/shipyard★ 1same name
- Johnwang688/jarvis★ 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 repository67 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agents-onboardingSkill
- agent-workitem-automationSkill
- architecture-testingSkill
- aspire-integration-testingSkill
- automated-standards-enforcementSkill
- best-practice-introductionSkill
- branching-strategy-and-conventionsSkill
- broken-windowSkill
- change-risk-rollbackSkill
- ci-cd-conformanceSkill
- component-boundary-ownershipSkill
- contract-consistency-validationSkill
- csharp-best-practicesSkill
- deployment-provenanceSkill
- documentation-as-codeSkill
- documentation-scaffoldSkill
- dotnet-bespoke-code-minimisationSkill
- dotnet-best-practicesSkill
- dotnet-domain-primitivesSkill
- dotnet-efcore-practicesSkill
- dotnet-healthchecksSkill
- dotnet-logging-serilogSkill
- dotnet-mapping-standardSkill
- dotnet-open-source-first-governanceSkill
- dotnet-source-generation-firstSkill
- dotnet-specification-patternSkill
- dotnet-testing-assertionsSkill
- environment-traceabilitySkill
- finishing-a-development-branch-iddSkill
- greenfield-baselineSkill
- impacted-scope-enforcementSkill
- incremental-change-impactSkill
- incremental-deploymentSkill
- innersource-governance-bootstrapSkill
- issue-driven-deliverySkill
- library-extraction-stabilisationSkill
- local-dev-experienceSkill
- markdown-authorSkill
- modern-csharp-coding-standardsSkill
- monorepo-orchestration-setupSkill
- observability-logging-baselineSkill
- pair-programmingSkill
- persona-switchingSkill
- process-skill-routerSkill
- quality-gate-enforcementSkill
- release-tagging-planSkill
- repo-best-practices-bootstrapSkill
- repository-foundation-bootstrapSkill
- requirements-gatheringSkill
- runtime-tooling-validationSkill
- safe-brownfield-refactorSkill
- scoped-colocationSkill
- security-processesSkill
- selective-build-testSkill
- semantic-version-impactSkill
- session-awareSkill
- skills-first-workflowSkill
- static-analysis-securitySkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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 107
Purpose: When IMPLEMENTING, push back on user requests that deviate from agreed plan.
- Distinctive: line 113
When you detect a request that would alter the agreed plan's scope or deviate from the approved approach:
- Distinctive: line 144
Ask them to confirm they want to proceed anyway
- Distinctive: line 145
Document the decision in the relevant plan file with a "Scope Change" note
- Distinctive: line 146
Update acceptance criteria if applicable
- Distinctive: line 286
When whiteboard is complete, offer appropriate options based on detected structure:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
Whiteboard Skill
Overview
The whiteboard skill creates a lightweight, temporary planning space for exploring ideas mid-session. Unlike formal planning sessions that create detailed implementation plans, whiteboards are quick, informal spaces for:
- Roughing out approaches when you're unsure
- Parking branches of thought during exploration
- Capturing insights before committing to direction
- Temporary context switches during active work
Key difference from planning: Whiteboards are ephemeral and iterative. They're not formal plans - they're thinking tools you can refine into proper docs later.
Scope boundary: Whiteboards explore future requirements and options to feed into planning. Do NOT derailing into implementation planning during whiteboarding. Requirements must be cohesive and complete BEFORE moving to planning.
When to Use
Trigger Conditions
The whiteboard activates when you detect these user signals:
Explicit Triggers:
- "whiteboard", "wb:", "whiteboard this"
- "add a whiteboard to [X]" → LITERAL TRIGGER: create whiteboard first, then execute
- "rough this out", "sketch this out"
- "let me think about this", "explore this approach"
- "park this thought", "branch this idea"
- "not sure yet, let's brainstorm"
Implicit Triggers:
- User switches topics mid-session without "discuss"/"brainstorm" keywords
- User asks "what do you think" during active work
- You detect 2+ divergent approaches being considered
- User seems uncertain or exploring options
- Context switching needed during feature implementation
- Scope/plan deviation detected (see Scope Guardrail below)
When NOT to use:
- Clear request for implementation plan → Use
planskill - Specific, well-defined requirements → Delegate directly
- Quick lookup/clarification → Answer directly
- User says "stop brainstorming" → Return to previous work
Decision Tree: Which Skill Should I Use?
START: User wants to discuss something
│
├─ Is the topic CLEARLY DEFINED with known requirements?
│ └─ YES → Can you implement directly? → Delegate to executor
│ └─ NO → Use `plan` skill for implementation planning
│
├─ Is the topic UNCERTAIN, exploring options, or "not sure"?
│ └─ YES → Is there a specific decision needed? → Use `whiteboard`
│ └─ NO (general exploration) → Use `brainstorming` skill
│
└─ TRIGGER WORDS:
- "whiteboard this", "sketch this out", "rough this out" → whiteboard
- "plan this", "create a plan for", "break down tasks" → plan
- "evaluate", "assess", "what do you think about" → brainstormingQuick Reference Table:
| Situation | Use Skill | Output |
| Rough out approaches when unsure | whiteboard | Informal notes → refine to doc later |
| Explore multiple options with discussion | brainstorming | Structured exploration with interview |
| Create detailed implementation plan | plan | Task breakdown with dependencies |
| Quick note/memory capture | note | Single fact or insight |
Key Differentiator:
- Whiteboard: Quick, informal, thinking tool → can refine later
- Brainstorming: Structured exploration with interview workflow
- Plan: Detailed implementation tasks with dependencies
Skill Switching: When to Switch TO Whiteboard
Whiteboarding can be entered from other skills when they go off-track:
ALREADY IN ANOTHER SKILL → Should you switch to whiteboard?
│
├─ In PLANNING session → scope deviation detected?
│ └─ YES → Switch to whiteboard to explore the deviation
│ - "This alters the agreed plan. Let's whiteboard this change."
│
├─ In BRAINSTORMING → requirements becoming unclear?
│ └─ YES → Switch to whiteboard to capture what's known
│ - "We're discovering requirements. Let me whiteboard this."
│
└─ During IMPLEMENTATION → blocker or ambiguity found?
└─ YES → Switch to whiteboard to resolve
- "I need to think through this ambiguity. Whiteboarding..."When to SWITCH BACK:
- Whiteboard complete → return to original skill with new clarity
- Or refine whiteboard into appropriate formal doc → resume work
External Scope Guardrail: Push Back on Plan Deviations
Purpose: When IMPLEMENTING, push back on user requests that deviate from agreed plan.
Distinction from Rule #11:
- External Scope Guardrail (this section): Protect the PLAN from scope creep during implementation
- Rule #11 (Internal Scope Guardrail): Protect the WHITEBOARD from drifting into planning
When you detect a request that would alter the agreed plan's scope or deviate from the approved approach:
Detection signals:
- Request adds features not in the original plan
- Request changes architecture/data model already agreed upon
- Request expands acceptance criteria beyond what was documented
- Request conflicts with an existing ADR or design doc
- "While we're at it, let's also add..." during implementation
Your response pattern:
"⚠️ **SCOPE CHANGE DETECTED**
This request would alter the scope of the approved plan:
- Current plan: {cite the plan file and relevant section}
- Agreed scope: {what was approved}
- Requested change: {what user is asking for}
- Impact: {how this changes scope/effort/architecture}
**I recommend whiteboarding this change** rather than implementing immediately.
This allows us to:
- Understand the full impact on existing work
- Update the plan with revised scope/acceptance criteria
- Consider dependencies on other planned work
- Potentially create an ADR if architectural
Shall we whiteboard this?"If user insists on implementing without whiteboard:
- Reiterate the impact with specific evidence
- Ask them to confirm they want to proceed anyway
- Document the decision in the relevant plan file with a "Scope Change" note
- Update acceptance criteria if applicable
When NOT to use:
- Clear request for implementation plan → Use
planskill - Specific, well-defined requirements → Delegate directly
- Quick lookup/clarification → Answer directly
- User says "stop brainstorming" → Return to previous work
How It Works
Workflow
1. DETECT trigger (explicit or implicit)
↓
2. CHECK for existing docs structure
- docs/adr/ (Architecture Decision Records)
- docs/design/ (Design docs)
- docs/plans/ (Implementation plans)
- docs/phase-plans/ (Phase-based planning)
↓
3. CREATE temporary whiteboard
- docs/whiteboards/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{topic-slug}.md
- From template.md (section structure below)
↓
4. ANNOUNCE mode transition
"Switching to WHITEBOARD mode for exploration..."
↓
5. TRACK session
- Register in docs/whiteboards/_open-sessions.md
- Update status on state changes
↓
6. CONDUCT exploration
- Quick bullets, not formal structure
- Multiple branches/alternatives
- Pin key insights
- User drives, you facilitate
↓
7. RESOLVE on completion
- Archive: Move to appropriate formal doc type
- Park: Keep for later (status: parked)
- Discard: Delete if obsolete
- Resume: Return to interrupted workWorktree Protocol (Isolation)
ALL whiteboards must be created on whiteboard/{topic} branches. Never create whiteboards on main or feature branches.
1. CHECK current branch
- If already on whiteboard/* → Use existing branch
- If on main or feature/* → Create new whiteboard branch
↓
2. CREATE whiteboard branch (if needed)
- git checkout -b whiteboard/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{topic-slug}
- OR: git worktree add ../{repo}-wb-{topic} -b whiteboard/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{topic-slug}
↓
3. CREATE whiteboard file
- docs/whiteboards/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{topic-slug}.md
- From template.md
↓
4. IF interrupting active work
- Populate Context Snapshot with interrupted state
- Note original branch for return
↓
5. COMMIT whiteboard
- git add docs/whiteboards/
- git commit with descriptive message
↓
6. ON completion
- Refine into formal docs OR park as-is
- PR whiteboard branch → main
- Return to original branch if interruptedWhy always whiteboard branches?
- Keeps exploration isolated from production code
- Clean git history (no exploratory commits mixed with real work)
- Easy to discard whiteboard without affecting main
- Consistent pattern regardless of context
Mode Transitions
Entering Whiteboard Mode:
"Switching to WHITEBOARD mode for exploration..."
- Creating temporary planning space at docs/whiteboards/{date}-{topic}.md
- Detected existing docs structure: [list found]
- This will NOT create a formal plan yet, just a space to think
- Type 'done', 'archive this', or 'back to work' when readyExiting Whiteboard Mode:
"Exiting WHITEBOARD mode..."
Whiteboard refined into:
- [Formal doc type] at [path]
- Resuming work on [feature branch/task]
OR
Whiteboard parked at docs/whiteboards/{topic}.md (status: parked)
Resuming work on [feature branch/task]Agent Behavior Rules
Rules governing agent behaviour while using the whiteboard.
See Agent Behavior Rules.
Integration with Existing Docs
Detecting Doc Types
On whiteboard creation, probe for existing structure:
# Check for ADR structure
if [[ -f "docs/adr/0000-use-adrs.md" ]]; then
HAS_ADR=true
ADR_NEXT=$(ls docs/adr/*.md | tail -1 | grep -oP '\d+' | awk '{print $1+1}')
fi
# Check for design docs
if [[ -d "docs/design" ]]; then
HAS_DESIGN=true
fi
# Check for plans
if [[ -d "docs/plans" ]] || [[ -d "docs/phase-plans" ]]; then
HAS_PLANS=true
fiRefinement Paths
When whiteboard is complete, offer appropriate options based on detected structure:
| Whiteboard Content | Refine Into | Template/Process |
| Technical decision | ADR | docs/adr/{next-number}-{topic}.md |
| Game mechanic | Design doc | docs/design/gdd-{topic}.md |
| Implementation | Plan | docs/plans/{topic}.md |
| Multi-phase work | Phase plan | docs/phase-plans/phase-{N}.md |
| Not ready yet | Parked whiteboard | docs/whiteboards/{topic}.md |
| Obsolete | Discarded | (delete file) |
Open Sessions Tracking
How open whiteboard sessions are tracked, listed, and resumed.
See Open Sessions Tracking.
Template Structure
See template.md for the whiteboard template with all sections:
- Header - Topic, date, status, triggered by
- Context Snapshot - Interrupted work state (if mid-session)
- Session Intent - What we're exploring
- Pinned Insights - Key findings as we go
- Branches - Alternative ideas to revisit
- Active Thread - Current exploration thread
- Next Steps - What to do when done (if resolved)
- Refined Into - Link to formal doc (if archived)
Related Skills
brainstorming- More structured exploration with interview workflowplan- Formal planning session with implementation tasksnote- Quick memory capture (single facts, not exploration)
Whiteboard is lighter than all of these - it's for roughing out ideas quickly, not creating formal outputs.
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.

