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
- udecode/platetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- vercel-labs/add-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- chrysogonus/power-agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Adelie-Squad/solosquadtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cloudflare/vinexttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
LesaniSkillwriting-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
GoogleSkillsetup-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
liufeng1976Skillsetup-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
SethGammonSkillascii-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
simo97Skillmigrate-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
LesaniSkillwriting-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
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 189
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- withastro/astro★ 64ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 60ksame name
- ogulcancelik/herdr★ 47ksame name
- herdrdev/herdr★ 47ksame name
- colinhacks/zod★ 44ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- vercel-labs/add-skill★ 39ksame name
- vercel-labs/skills★ 39ksame name
179 more not listed
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 repository50 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adr-conventionSkill
- architecture-vocabularySkill
- backlog-externalSkill
- backlog-localSkill
- backlogSkill
- checkpointsSkill
- design-principlesSkill
- domain-glossarySkill
- git-practicesSkill
- grounded-claimsSkill
- knowledge-checkSkill
- policy-riskSkill
- positive-framingSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- skill-awarenessSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- token-efficientSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- workflow-bugSkill
- workflow-checkSkill
- workflow-commitSkill
- workflow-contractsSkill
- workflow-debugSkill
- workflow-decisionsSkill
- workflow-docsSkill
- workflow-doctorSkill
- workflow-epicSkill
- workflow-featureSkill
- workflow-flow-fix-pipelineSkill
- workflow-flowSkill
- workflow-grillSkill
- workflow-handoffSkill
- workflow-ideaSkill
- workflow-implementSkill
- workflow-planSkill
- workflow-proposalSkill
- workflow-prSkill
- workflow-refineSkill
- workflow-researchSkill
- workflow-reviewSkill
- workflow-startSkill
- workflow-statusSkill
- workflow-tech-reviewSkill
- workflow-update-workflowSkill
- workflow-validateSkill
- workflow-worktreeSkill
- workflow-yoloSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 116
Read the feature/bug description from the user
- Very specific: line 117
Read stack.md for project context
- Distinctive: line 119
Check backlog for related work
- Very specific: line 144
If
--auto: Use the detected level, no prompt. - Distinctive: line 145
If interactive: Wait for user confirmation or override.
- Very specific: line 208
When triage assigns Level 2, /feature uses this reduced template instead of the full 18-section template:
- Distinctive: line 276
Mid-pipeline: If work turns out more complex than expected, the user can say "this needs a plan" and the command should accommodate (create …
- Very specific: line 277
Per-project default: If stack.md has a triage: field (e.g., triage: standard), use it as the default instead of auto-detecting.
“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.
Files
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—/reviewcovers acceptance criteria- Research doc — unless
--deepis 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:
/featureor/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)
| Signal | How to detect |
| Multiple stories needed | Feature description implies 3+ distinct capabilities |
| New patterns or technologies | stack.md doesn't list the technology; no existing pattern in codebase |
| Architectural decisions required | Feature implies new services, data stores, or integration points |
| Cross-service or cross-repo work | Feature touches contracts, shared models, or external APIs |
--deep flag passed | User explicitly asked for thorough analysis |
| High uncertainty | Feature description is vague or the approach isn't obvious |
Signals favoring Level 2 (Standard)
| Signal | How to detect |
| 1-2 stories | Feature is a single capability with clear scope |
| Follows existing patterns | Codebase already has a similar feature (search for it) |
| Single service | All changes in one repo, one deployment unit |
| Clear scope | Feature description is specific and bounded |
| No new technologies | Everything needed is already in stack.md |
Signals favoring Level 3 (Minimal)
| Signal | How to detect |
| Single file change | Fix is isolated to one file or a small cluster |
| Obvious fix | Typo, config change, copy update, version bump |
| No design decisions | There's only one reasonable way to do it |
| Bug with known cause | User already knows what's broken and roughly where |
--quick flag passed | User explicitly asked for minimal ceremony |
Assessment Protocol
Step 1: Gather signals
- Read the feature/bug description from the user
- Read
stack.mdfor project context - Quick codebase scan — search for related patterns (Glob + Grep, max 3 queries)
- 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
| Level | Behavior |
| 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
| Level | Behavior |
| 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
| Level | Behavior |
| 1 (Full) | Full plan document, separate file in docs/plans/ |
| 2 (Standard) | Skipped. /implement does inline analysis instead. |
| 3 (Minimal) | Skipped. |
/implement
| Level | Behavior |
| 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
| Level | Behavior |
| 1 (Full) | Full contract extraction and schema files |
| 2 (Standard) | Skipped. Types in code are the contracts. |
| 3 (Minimal) | Skipped. |
/validate
| Level | Behavior |
| 1 (Full) | Full validation report, gap analysis |
| 2 (Standard) | Skipped. /review checks acceptance criteria inline. |
| 3 (Minimal) | Skipped. |
/review
| Level | Behavior |
| 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:
--deepforces Level 1 (full).--quickforces 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.mdhas atriage: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.
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.

