agentleFS
ovargasovargas/virtual-team/skills/triage/SKILL.md

triage

Skill14 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Assess work complexity and determine the right documentation ceremony level before starting the pipeline

189 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use writing-beats, setup-matt-pocock-skills and 10 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.
  • LesaniSkill

    writing-beats

    Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.

    Also in 66 projects that use this

  • GoogleSkill

    setup-matt-pocock-skills

    Configure this repo for the engineering skills — set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills.

    Also in 167 projects that use this

  • liufeng1976Skill

    setup-ts-deep-modules

    Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.

    Also in 42 projects that use this

  • SethGammonSkill

    ascii-diagram

    Generate perfectly aligned ASCII diagrams — architecture, flow, sequence, box-and-arrow. Uses a programmatic character-grid approach so alignment is guaranteed by math, not token prediction. Includes post-render verification.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • simo97Skill

    migrate-to-shoehorn

    Migrate test files from `as` type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace `as` in tests, or needs partial test data.

    Also in 68 projects that use this

  • LesaniSkill

    writing-shape

    Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.

    Also in 63 projects that use this

  • +1 more from Lesani

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 176 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the feature/bug description from the user

    line 116
  2. Very specific:

    Read stack.md for project context

    line 117
  3. Distinctive:

    Check backlog for related work

    line 119
  4. Very specific:

    If --auto: Use the detected level, no prompt.

    line 144
  5. Distinctive:

    If interactive: Wait for user confirmation or override.

    line 145
  6. Very specific:

    When triage assigns Level 2, /feature uses this reduced template instead of the full 18-section template:

    line 208
  7. Distinctive:

    Mid-pipeline: If work turns out more complex than expected, the user can say "this needs a plan" and the command should accommodate (create …

    line 276
  8. Very specific:

    Per-project default: If stack.md has a triage: field (e.g., triage: standard), use it as the default instead of auto-detecting.

    line 277

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 176 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

Triage Skill

Triage classifies work into one of three ceremony levels before the pipeline starts. The goal is to match documentation depth to task complexity — full ceremony for complex work, lightweight for simple changes.

When to Load

  • /flow — always, as Step 0 before the pipeline begins
  • /feature — to determine which spec template to use (full vs compact)
  • /bug — to determine whether to create a formal bug report or skip to debug
  • /implement — when invoked standalone without a plan, to determine if planless execution is appropriate

Ceremony Levels

Level 1 — Full

The current default. Every artifact, every gate, every verification step.

Pipeline (feature): /feature → /contracts → /plan → /implement → /review + /validate → /pr Pipeline (bug fix): /bug → /debug → /plan → /implement → /review + /validate → /pr

Artifacts produced:

  • Feature spec (full template) or bug report (full template)
  • Research doc (if --deep)
  • Contract schemas (if API endpoints involved)
  • Implementation plan (separate document)
  • Validation report (separate document)
  • Checkpoints (during execution)
  • Decision records (if architectural choices made)

Feature spec template: Full (all 18 sections)

Level 2 — Standard

Skips the plan document, contracts step, and standalone validation. The feature spec expands its Implementation Hints section to cover pattern references and file list. /implement does inline analysis instead of requiring a formal plan.

Pipeline (feature): /feature → /implement → /review → /pr Pipeline (bug fix): /bug → /implement → /review → /pr

Artifacts produced:

  • Feature spec (compact template) or bug report (full template)
  • Checkpoints only for multi-phase implement (3+ phases)
  • Decision records (if architectural choices made)

Skipped:

  • /contracts — types in code are the contracts
  • /plan — Implementation Hints in the spec + inline analysis in /implement
  • /validate — /review covers acceptance criteria
  • Research doc — unless --deep is explicitly passed

Feature spec template: Compact (see "Compact Feature Spec" section below)

Level 3 — Minimal

For trivial changes where the commit message and PR description are the documentation. No separate spec document.

Pipeline (feature): /implement → /review → /pr Pipeline (bug fix): /implement → /review → /pr

Artifacts produced:

  • Backlog entry (one line)
  • PR description carries the context (problem, solution, verification)

Skipped:

  • /feature or /bug — no separate spec document
  • /contracts, /plan, /validate — all skipped
  • Checkpoints — not needed for single-phase work
  • Research doc — not applicable

Feature spec template: None — context goes directly into the PR description

Classification Signals

Triage reads these signals to recommend a level. No single signal is decisive — the overall pattern determines the level.

Signals favoring Level 1 (Full)

SignalHow to detect
Multiple stories neededFeature description implies 3+ distinct capabilities
New patterns or technologiesstack.md doesn't list the technology; no existing pattern in codebase
Architectural decisions requiredFeature implies new services, data stores, or integration points
Cross-service or cross-repo workFeature touches contracts, shared models, or external APIs
--deep flag passedUser explicitly asked for thorough analysis
High uncertaintyFeature description is vague or the approach isn't obvious

Signals favoring Level 2 (Standard)

SignalHow to detect
1-2 storiesFeature is a single capability with clear scope
Follows existing patternsCodebase already has a similar feature (search for it)
Single serviceAll changes in one repo, one deployment unit
Clear scopeFeature description is specific and bounded
No new technologiesEverything needed is already in stack.md

Signals favoring Level 3 (Minimal)

SignalHow to detect
Single file changeFix is isolated to one file or a small cluster
Obvious fixTypo, config change, copy update, version bump
No design decisionsThere's only one reasonable way to do it
Bug with known causeUser already knows what's broken and roughly where
--quick flag passedUser explicitly asked for minimal ceremony

Assessment Protocol

Step 1: Gather signals

  1. Read the feature/bug description from the user
  2. Read stack.md for project context
  3. Quick codebase scan — search for related patterns (Glob + Grep, max 3 queries)
  4. Check backlog for related work

Step 2: Score and classify

Count signals from each level. The level with the most signals wins. Ties break toward the higher ceremony level (safer to over-document than under-document).

Step 3: Present the assessment

**Triage: Level [N] — [Full | Standard | Minimal]**

Signals:
- [Signal 1] → Level [N]
- [Signal 2] → Level [N]
- [Signal 3] → Level [N]

Pipeline: [step] → [step] → [step]
Skipping: [skipped steps, or "nothing — full ceremony"]

[If --auto: proceed silently]
[If not --auto: "Proceed with Level [N]? [Yes / Upgrade / Downgrade]"]

Step 4: Apply

  • If --auto: Use the detected level, no prompt. Log the assessment in the flow checkpoint.
  • If interactive: Wait for user confirmation or override. If the user overrides, use their choice.
  • Store the assessed level in the flow checkpoint (if /flow) or pass it forward to the next command.

How Commands Use Triage Level

/feature

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Full 6-phase process, full spec template
2 (Standard)Phases 1-4 (Understand, YAGNI, Research, Specify) compressed. Compact spec template. Skip Phase 6 story breakdown if single-story.
3 (Minimal)Skip /feature entirely. Context goes into /implement and PR description.

/bug

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Full bug report with all sections
2 (Standard)Full bug report (bugs are already lightweight)
3 (Minimal)Skip /bug. Description goes directly to /implement.

/plan

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Full plan document, separate file in docs/plans/
2 (Standard)Skipped. /implement does inline analysis instead.
3 (Minimal)Skipped.

/implement

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Requires approved plan. Current behavior unchanged.
2 (Standard)No plan required. Before coding, does inline analysis: reads the feature spec's Implementation Hints, scans codebase for patterns, identifies files to modify, and presents a brief summary before starting. This is "planning in your head" — lightweight, not documented.
3 (Minimal)No plan, no spec required. Works from the bug/feature description alone. Reads codebase, identifies the change, implements it.

/contracts

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Full contract extraction and schema files
2 (Standard)Skipped. Types in code are the contracts.
3 (Minimal)Skipped.

/validate

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Full validation report, gap analysis
2 (Standard)Skipped. /review checks acceptance criteria inline.
3 (Minimal)Skipped.

/review

LevelBehavior
1 (Full)Full 3-pass review (code quality + security + domain)
2 (Standard)Full 3-pass review (same — review quality doesn't scale down)
3 (Minimal)Single-pass review (inline, no agents). Focus on correctness only.

Compact Feature Spec

When triage assigns Level 2, /feature uses this reduced template instead of the full 18-section template:

---
id: FEAT-[NNN]
date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
status: draft
type: feature
triage: standard
tags: [relevant, tags]
---

# [Feature Name]

> **Value:** [One sentence — why this matters]

## Problem

[2-3 sentences. What's broken or missing?]

## Solution

[Describe the feature at the level of user-visible behavior.]

## Boundaries

**Not building:**
- [No-go 1] — [why]

## Definition of Done

1. [Observable behavior 1]
2. [Observable behavior 2]
3. [Quality requirement]

**Verification:**
- [ ] [Test or check with command to run]
- [ ] [Manual verification step]

## Implementation Hints

**Pattern to follow:** [file:line reference to the closest existing implementation]

**Files to modify:**
| File | Action | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `path/to/file.ext` | modify | [Brief description] |
| `path/to/file.ext` | create | [Brief description] |

**Key considerations:**
- [Integration point or constraint]
- [Pattern to maintain]

## Founder Context

[Observations that shaped this feature, if any. Omit if none.]

This keeps the high-value sections (Problem, Solution, Boundaries, DoD) while dropping the sections that are either redundant with the plan (which we're skipping) or low-value for simple features (Success Metrics, Visual Concept, Research Summary, Incremental Delivery).

The triage: standard frontmatter field tells downstream commands which ceremony level applies.

Overriding Triage

The user can always override:

  • At assessment time: "Upgrade" or "Downgrade" when prompted
  • Via flags: --deep forces Level 1 (full). --quick forces Level 3 (minimal).
  • Mid-pipeline: If work turns out more complex than expected, the user can say "this needs a plan" and the command should accommodate (create the plan doc at that point).
  • Per-project default: If stack.md has a triage: field (e.g., triage: standard), use it as the default instead of auto-detecting. Auto-detection still runs but its recommendation is overridden by the project default unless the user explicitly passes a flag.

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.