blueprint-crafting
Skill1 starsChanged 37 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
blueprint-crafting: Produces convergence-checked upstream artifacts — product spec (PRD), architecture design (arch-design), iteration plan, executable summary, and research — that parallel-development consumes as authoritative references. Use it whenever the user wants to author, rewrite, research, or convergence-check an upstream artifact: "author a spec", "write an arch-design", "produce an iteration-plan", "research X for the spec", "spec-driven", "write a PRD", "author a roadmap", "write a design doc", "decision log". Each artifact converges on its constraints-profile (process axis: anchors + authority-chain + sources); content correctness stays human (outcome axis). NOT for implementing code — feature implementation, bug fixes, and refactors route to parallel-development. Specifier half of the specify then implement pipeline.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- maskshell/solidforgeedited, first seen Nov 4, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- maskshell/solidforge★ 171% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- cross-source-reviewSkill
- parallel-developmentSkill
- primary-source-verificationSkill
- prior-art-searchSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 24
Does not converge "is this the correct product/design/conclusion" (outcome axis — human/market only).
- Very specific: line 25
Does not implement code. That is parallel-development's job.
- Distinctive: line 51
Run in order; do not wait for the user between steps.
- Very specific: line 61
If memory says the docs were already converged, read the frozen .run-record.json / .queue.md to judge whether re-converge is needed — the …
≈ “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
Blueprint Crafting
Produces frozen, convergence-checked upstream artifacts — product spec, architecture design, iteration plan, executable summary, and research — for parallel-development to consume as authoritative references. The two skills form a specify then implement pipeline.
Core Positioning
Constrained production, not check-only
Most upstream artifacts arrive incomplete. This skill does not merely validate; it authors, rewrites, researches, and checks them to convergence. Every activity (author / rewrite / research / check) has a constraints-profile — the deterministic checks that form its convergence oracle.
- Process axis (the convergence loop ran well): the artifact's constraints-profile is satisfied + adversarial reviewer has no Blocker + decisions resolved + no drift. Deterministic, high-confidence, convergeable.
- Outcome axis (is the artifact right): is this the correct product / design / conclusion. Only the user/market can judge. Always
human_confirm_required.
Good output = process-axis convergence, NOT "the artifact is correct." The two axes are kept separate in the verdict (see arch-design §1).
What it does NOT do
- Does not converge "is this the correct product/design/conclusion" (outcome axis — human/market only).
- Does not implement code. That is
parallel-development's job.
Scope
- In: produce convergence-checked upstream artifacts (author / rewrite / research / check), each gated by its constraints-profile.
- Out: outcome axis ("correct product/direction/conclusion" — human only); code implementation (
parallel-development).
Scope Guard (entry-time detection)
Runs as the first step of invocation, before any production work. The guard keys on the deliverable, not on the word "document":
- In scope: the deliverable is an upstream artifact itself (a spec, arch-design, iteration plan, executable summary, or research artifact) — produced or converged.
- Out of scope: the deliverable is source/test code (a feature, bug fix, refactor, or tests). Emit a misuse hint and route to
parallel-development.
Misuse hints (terse; fire without loading the full scope detail):
- Implement a feature / fix a bug / refactor code → this skill produces the spec, not the code. Route:
parallel-development. - Execute/follow an existing plan to deliver code → that is plan-driven implementation, not artifact authoring. Route:
parallel-development(plan-driven mode). - "Is this the right product direction / is this research conclusion true?" → outcome axis, human only. This skill converges the constraints-profile, not the conclusion.
The guard is soft: it reminds and routes, does not refuse. A user may knowingly proceed on a partial fit.
Quick Start
You are the producer: author the Markdown artifact, then run the deterministic convergence with produce.py. The outer ring (solidforge:plan-reviewer) is an LLM agent you invoke separately via the subagent tool (agent="solidforge:plan-reviewer") — pass its findings via --outer to reach process_converged. Do not read infra/scripts/*.py to reverse-engineer operator CLIs; produce.py is the one entry point and chains the operators as libraries (the individual CLIs are not shell-pipeable — normalizer emits a {plan_model, coverage} wrapper while the others take a bare plan-model, so shell chaining fails silently green). infra/test/end_to_end.py shows the library-API shape (how the operators compose in Python) — it is a developer reference, NOT a produce.py CLI example; produce.py usage is steps 3–4 below, so do not read end_to_end to learn it.
Run in order; do not wait for the user between steps.
- Author the artifact (your primary work — write Markdown) covering its anchors — arch-design §3 lists the per-type anchors,
infra/scripts/constraints.jsonthe profile eachartifact_typemust satisfy. - Build
plan-model.json. Normalize a source withnormalizer.normalize(text, format=fmt)(returns{plan_model, coverage}— keep theplan_modelhalf) or construct it directly, then setplan_model["anchors"]for every required anchor (author-supplied is authoritative; the normalizer's keyword detection is an advisory fallback). The field contract — required top-level fields, every item field's semantics, and thesubset_tagsthree-way classification (executable / upstream_only / downstream_only) — isinfra/schemas/plan-model.schema.json; every field carries adescription, so author against the schema directly. Do NOT readplan_model.py/freeze.py/constraints_check.pyto reverse-engineer the fields — those are embody/check logic, not the contract; the schema is the single source of truth. python3 infra/scripts/produce.py plan-model.json --out-dir docs/→ runs the inner ring + freeze; printsprocess_converged(false until the outer ring is supplied) and writes<name>.queue.md+.run-record.json. Fix any named inner Blocker (anchor / authority / ODP) and re-run.- Invoke the
subagenttool (agent="solidforge:plan-reviewer") — pass the spec via the authority chain so the seam-quality checks are active (the spec absent → the checks degrade to a coverage note); save its findings tofindings.json; re-runpython3 infra/scripts/produce.py plan-model.json --outer findings.json --out-dir docs/→process_converged=trueon a clean outer ring.
If memory says the docs were already converged, read the frozen .run-record.json / .queue.md to judge whether re-converge is needed — the verdict lives in the run-record, not in the infra source.
When This Skill Is Invoked
The operational entry point is produce.py (see Quick Start above) — the stages below are the conceptual lifecycle it orchestrates as library calls; you do not invoke the individual operator CLIs (they are not shell-pipeable).
Execute the convergence lifecycle for the detected artifact type and activity. The full target lifecycle (operators land across iterations I2–I7; see docs/iteration-plan.md):
- Scope Guard (before any work) — out-of-scope (code) → misuse hint + route to
parallel-development. Normalize — heterogeneous source format (rich md / Cursor
.plan.md/ work-package) → plan-model, graded extraction (latch high-confidence / prose semantic-infer low-confidence). Note:research-notesis NOT a normalizer input format — research artifacts populateplan_model["research"]directly (see step 3), bypassing item-normalization, because theresearch.{claims,sources,cost_ledger,staging}shape has no item-parser. [iteration I2]Anchor detection (the completeness input to step 3) is bilingual keyword-based (English + Chinese; aliases in
constraints.json → anchor_detection, ADR #15). It is a heuristic: the normalizer tagsanchors_meta.source = normalizer-extracted, so an undetected anchor degrades to a coverage note — never a Blocker (ADR #12, rule 4). For a doc the keyword map under-detects (unusual terminology, a language beyond the aliases), author-supply the anchors map instead: setplan_model.anchorsdirectly andanchors_meta.source = author-supplied— that map is authoritative, so a missing required anchor becomes a real Blocker (the honest, strong input for the inner ring).- Constraints-check (inner ring, deterministic over the plan-model) — run the artifact's constraints-profile: completeness (anchors), authority-chain, ODP-tracker, and (for research) sources-cited / staging / cost-bounded / provenance. For the research activity, multi-source web gathering is dispatched to the
subagenttool (agent="solidforge:researcher"; it returns theresearchsub-object; the loop places it intoplan_model["research"]); the constraints-checker then converges it. Profiles live in a registry (constraints.json), not hardcoded. [iterations I3, I4] - Adversarial review (outer ring) — independent
solidforge:plan-reviewerfinds gaps / over-engineering / contradictions / blind spots. [iteration I5] - Verdict —
process_converged(high confidence) +rightness: human_confirm_required(constant). [iteration I6] - Freeze — frozen plan-model (round-trip-compatible with
parallel-developmentplan_queue.pyon the executable subset) + spec run-record. [iteration I7]
Current build status
This is the I0 scaffold. Loaded and routing-correct; the operators above are built across I2–I7. What exists now:
- This SKILL.md (activation boundary + scope guard + routing to the design docs).
- The plan-model handshake contract: schema + round-trip assertion with
plan_queue.pyon the executable subset (iteration I1, ADR #1). - The outer-ring
solidforge:plan-revieweragent + findings schema + precision self-check (iteration I5; the agent definition is the deliverable; precision is an LLM eval, not a deterministic gate — ADR #10). - The normalizer: heterogeneous source format (Cursor
.plan.md/ rich md / work-package) → plan-model with graded extraction (latch high-confidence / prose semantic-infer low-confidence). Heuristics advisory, never a Blocker (rule 4). Anchor detection is bilingual keyword-based (English + Chinese; ADR #15); an undetected anchor degrades to coverage (ADR #12), or author-supply the map for an authoritative check. - The constraints-checker: inner-ring deterministic gate over the plan-model (anchors + authority-chain + resolve-now ODP), profiles in a registry (
constraints.json), not hardcoded (rule 2). - The research constraints-profile: the v1 subset (sources-cited / staging-via-convergence / cost-bounded = Blocker; provenance-tag = warning), modeled on
fedaot-kb(ADR #4). - The verdict-emitter + spec run-record: two-field verdict (
process_converged+rightness: human_confirm_requiredconstant), field-isolated — a green process axis never changes the outcome-axis constant.
All iterations I0–I7 converged (process-axis acceptance gate, iteration-plan §6, met): normalize → constraints-check → research-constraints → solidforge:plan-reviewer → verdict → freeze, end-to-end (produce + defect-repair + round-trip proven in end_to_end.py).
The skill is at the process-axis acceptance gate; content correctness stays outcome axis (human).
Authority Chain
docs/arch-design.md= authoritative spec.docs/iteration-plan.md= execution blueprint (on conflict, arch-design wins).docs/design-decisions.md= decision log (ADRs).
Self-Checks (Definition of Done)
A skill change is not done while any self-check fails (workspace rule 1). Run before commit:
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/trigger_check.py # bidirectional activation boundary
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/disconnect_check.py # structure + loading-chain
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/plan_model_schema.py # plan-model schema validator (self-tests)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/round_trip.py # executable-subset round-trip with plan_queue.py
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/plan_reviewer_precision.py # plan_reviewer scaffolding gate (I5; precision eval is LLM, ADR #10)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/normalizer_goldens.py # 3-format normalizer goldens (I2; latch vs semantic-infer)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/constraints_check_goldens.py # constraints-checker: 6 exemplars pass, anchor/authority fail (I3)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/research_constraints_goldens.py # research v1: sources/staging/cost Blocker, provenance warning (I4)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/run_record_schema.py # run-record schema validator (I6)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/run_record.py # verdict field-isolation: rightness constant (I6)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/end_to_end.py # capstone: produce + converge + defect-repair + round-trip (I7)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/freeze_goldens.py # freeze operator: emits a pd-parseable .queue.md + schema-valid .run-record.json (Unit 3)
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/produce_goldens.py # produce.py orchestrator: one-command convergence (inner -> verdict -> freeze) + --outer + defect/research
python3 skills/blueprint-crafting/infra/test/lint_self.py # dogfood: lints this skill's own infra (ruff check + format; mirrors the fast_gate)Coordination with parallel-development
- Handshake: the executable subset of the plan-model (
item_id / seq / depends_on / dod_ref) is round-trip-compatible withplan_queue.py's Phase −1 frozen queue. NOT globally isomorphic — upstream-only metadata is tagged and ignored downstream; downstream-onlyblueprint_subsetis left empty / "downstream-filled" (ADR #1). - Coupling mode (independence): this skill copies
parallel-development's patterns (disconnect_check, schema/validator, plan-queue parse) and does NOT import its code (workspace rule 7). Deletingparallel-development/leaves this skill working standalone. - files_touched boundary: this skill owns
blueprint-crafting/; it does not write intoparallel-development/. The two couple via an artifact (the frozen plan-model), not via file mutation.
Reference Files
- arch-design.md - authoritative architecture spec (positioning, dual-ring over documents, artifact contract × constraints-profile, core operators, convergence stop condition, coordination with parallel-development)
- iteration-plan.md - execution blueprint (iterations I0–I7, complexity tiers, dependency DAG, validation gates, process-axis acceptance gate)
- design-decisions.md - ADR log (executable-subset round-trip, determinism over the model, constrained production, research constraints-profile, skill name, single-skill-with-modes, research v1 subset)
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.

