feature-analyzer
Skill340 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue. Use when planning new features, designing architecture, or making significant changes to the codebase.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- notedit/happy-coding-agentword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- MrCipherSmith/goodai-basetheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- notedit/happy-coding-agent★ 339100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- MrCipherSmith/goodai-base★ 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- feature-devSkill
- feature-pipelineSkill
- issue-flowSkill
- screenshot-analyzerSkill
- cover-imageSkill
- skill-creation-guideSkill
- tts-skillSkill
- gsap-animationSkill
- react-animationSkill
- spring-animationSkill
- video-producerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
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 22
Use AskUserQuestion to batch collect information efficiently.
- Distinctive: line 227
After gathering requirements, propose 2-3 approaches:
- Distinctive: line 248
Use AskUserQuestion to confirm approach:
- Distinctive: line 278
After each section, use AskUserQuestion:
- Distinctive: line 362
Batch questions efficiently: - Use all 4 question slots when appropriate
- Distinctive: line 365
Mark recommendations: - Add "(Recommended)" to preferred options
- Distinctive: line 367
Validate incrementally: - Check understanding at each phase
- Distinctive: line 368
YAGNI ruthlessly: - Remove unnecessary features from designs
≈ “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
Feature Analyzer
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through structured information gathering and collaborative validation.
Announce at start: "I'm using the feature-analyzer skill to design this feature."
Phase 1: Context Discovery
First, explore the codebase to understand:
- Project structure and tech stack
- Existing patterns and conventions
- Related features or modules
- Recent changes in relevant areas
Phase 2: Structured Information Gathering
Use AskUserQuestion to batch collect information efficiently. Each call can ask up to 4 questions.
Round 1: Core Requirements (4 questions)
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "What is the primary goal of this feature?",
"header": "Goal",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "New Functionality", "description": "Add entirely new capability to the system" },
{ "label": "Enhancement", "description": "Improve or extend existing feature" },
{ "label": "Bug Fix", "description": "Fix incorrect behavior or issue" },
{ "label": "Refactoring", "description": "Improve code quality without changing behavior" }
]
},
{
"question": "Who are the primary users of this feature?",
"header": "Users",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "End Users", "description": "External customers using the product" },
{ "label": "Admins", "description": "Internal administrators or operators" },
{ "label": "Developers", "description": "Other developers using APIs or SDKs" },
{ "label": "System", "description": "Automated processes or background jobs" }
]
},
{
"question": "What is the expected scope of this feature?",
"header": "Scope",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Small (1-2 days)", "description": "Single component, limited changes" },
{ "label": "Medium (3-5 days)", "description": "Multiple components, moderate complexity" },
{ "label": "Large (1-2 weeks)", "description": "Cross-cutting concerns, significant changes" },
{ "label": "Unsure", "description": "Need to explore further to estimate" }
]
},
{
"question": "Are there any hard deadlines or constraints?",
"header": "Timeline",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Urgent", "description": "Need this ASAP, within days" },
{ "label": "This Sprint", "description": "Should be done within current sprint" },
{ "label": "Flexible", "description": "No hard deadline, quality over speed" },
{ "label": "Planning Only", "description": "Just designing now, implementing later" }
]
}
]
}Round 2: Technical Requirements (4 questions)
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which layers of the system will this feature touch?",
"header": "Layers",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "Data Model", "description": "Database schema, models, migrations" },
{ "label": "Business Logic", "description": "Services, domain logic, rules" },
{ "label": "API", "description": "REST/GraphQL endpoints, contracts" },
{ "label": "UI", "description": "Frontend components, user interface" }
]
},
{
"question": "What are the key quality requirements?",
"header": "Quality",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "High Performance", "description": "Must handle high load or be very fast" },
{ "label": "Strong Security", "description": "Sensitive data, auth, access control" },
{ "label": "High Reliability", "description": "Cannot fail, needs redundancy" },
{ "label": "Easy Maintenance", "description": "Needs to be easily understood and modified" }
]
},
{
"question": "How should errors be handled?",
"header": "Errors",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Fail Fast", "description": "Stop immediately on any error" },
{ "label": "Graceful Degrade", "description": "Continue with reduced functionality" },
{ "label": "Retry & Recover", "description": "Automatic retry with recovery logic" },
{ "label": "Context Dependent", "description": "Different strategies for different cases" }
]
},
{
"question": "What testing approach is preferred?",
"header": "Testing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "TDD (Recommended)", "description": "Write tests first, then implementation" },
{ "label": "Test After", "description": "Implement first, add tests after" },
{ "label": "Minimal Tests", "description": "Only critical path testing" },
{ "label": "No Tests", "description": "Skip testing for this feature" }
]
}
]
}Round 3: Integration & Dependencies (4 questions)
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Does this feature need external integrations?",
"header": "Integrations",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "Database", "description": "New tables, queries, or migrations" },
{ "label": "External APIs", "description": "Third-party service calls" },
{ "label": "Message Queue", "description": "Async processing, events" },
{ "label": "None", "description": "No external integrations needed" }
]
},
{
"question": "Are there dependencies on other features or teams?",
"header": "Dependencies",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "Auth System", "description": "User authentication or authorization" },
{ "label": "Other Features", "description": "Depends on features being developed" },
{ "label": "External Team", "description": "Needs input from another team" },
{ "label": "None", "description": "Fully independent feature" }
]
},
{
"question": "How should we handle backwards compatibility?",
"header": "Compat",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Must Maintain", "description": "Cannot break existing clients" },
{ "label": "Version API", "description": "Create new version, deprecate old" },
{ "label": "Breaking OK", "description": "Can make breaking changes" },
{ "label": "Not Applicable", "description": "New feature, no existing users" }
]
},
{
"question": "What documentation is needed?",
"header": "Docs",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "API Docs", "description": "Endpoint documentation" },
{ "label": "User Guide", "description": "How-to for end users" },
{ "label": "Dev Guide", "description": "Technical implementation details" },
{ "label": "None", "description": "No documentation needed" }
]
}
]
}Round 4: Clarifying Questions (Context-Dependent)
Based on previous answers, ask follow-up questions. Examples:
If UI layer selected:
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "What UI framework/approach should we use?",
"header": "UI Tech",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "React", "description": "React components with hooks" },
{ "label": "Vue", "description": "Vue.js components" },
{ "label": "Server-Side", "description": "Server-rendered HTML templates" },
{ "label": "Existing Pattern", "description": "Follow current project conventions" }
]
}
]
}If High Security selected:
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "What security measures are required?",
"header": "Security",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{ "label": "Input Validation", "description": "Strict input sanitization" },
{ "label": "Rate Limiting", "description": "Prevent abuse and DoS" },
{ "label": "Audit Logging", "description": "Track all sensitive actions" },
{ "label": "Encryption", "description": "Encrypt data at rest/transit" }
]
}
]
}Phase 3: Approach Exploration
After gathering requirements, propose 2-3 approaches:
## Approach Options
### Option A: [Name] (Recommended)
**Pros:** ...
**Cons:** ...
**Best for:** ...
### Option B: [Name]
**Pros:** ...
**Cons:** ...
**Best for:** ...
### Option C: [Name]
**Pros:** ...
**Cons:** ...
**Best for:** ...Use AskUserQuestion to confirm approach:
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which approach would you like to proceed with?",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Option A (Recommended)", "description": "Brief summary of approach A" },
{ "label": "Option B", "description": "Brief summary of approach B" },
{ "label": "Option C", "description": "Brief summary of approach C" }
]
}
]
}Phase 4: Design Presentation
Present design in sections (300-500 words each), validate after each:
- Architecture Overview - High-level structure
- Data Model - Entities, relationships, schema
- API Design - Endpoints, request/response
- Component Design - Internal modules, interfaces
- Error Handling - Error cases, recovery strategies
- Testing Strategy - What and how to test
After each section, use AskUserQuestion:
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Does this section look correct?",
"header": "Review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Looks Good", "description": "Continue to next section" },
{ "label": "Minor Changes", "description": "Small adjustments needed" },
{ "label": "Major Revision", "description": "Significant changes required" },
{ "label": "Questions", "description": "Need clarification before proceeding" }
]
}
]
}Phase 5: Documentation & Tasks
Save Design Document
Write to docs/designs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md:
# Feature: [Name]
## Summary
[Brief description]
## Requirements
[From Phase 2 answers]
## Architecture
[From Phase 4]
## Implementation Tasks
[Task checklist]Generate Implementation Tasks
## Implementation Tasks
- [ ] **Task Title** `priority:1` `phase:model` `time:15min`
- files: src/file1.py, tests/test_file1.py
- [ ] Write failing test for X
- [ ] Run test, verify it fails
- [ ] Implement minimal code
- [ ] Run test, verify it passes
- [ ] Commit
- [ ] **Another Task** `priority:2` `phase:api` `deps:Task Title` `time:10min`
- files: src/api.py
- [ ] Write failing test
- [ ] Implement and verify
- [ ] CommitPhase 6: Execution Handoff
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "How would you like to proceed with implementation?",
"header": "Next Step",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{ "label": "Execute Now", "description": "Run /feature-pipeline in this session" },
{ "label": "New Session", "description": "Start fresh session for implementation" },
{ "label": "Later", "description": "Save design, implement manually later" },
{ "label": "Revise Design", "description": "Go back and modify the design" }
]
}
]
}Key Principles
- Batch questions efficiently - Use all 4 question slots when appropriate
- Use multiSelect for non-exclusive options - Layers, features, requirements
- Use single-select for decisions - Approach, timeline, strategy
- Mark recommendations - Add "(Recommended)" to preferred options
- Progressive refinement - General → Specific questions
- Validate incrementally - Check understanding at each phase
- YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from designs
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.

