fp-brief
Skill192 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
First-principles briefing from technical documents. Use when: understanding why decisions were made, onboarding to feature reasoning, reviewing decision chains, explaining doc from first principles. Not for: PM/CTO summary (use project-brief), pre-doc analysis (use feasibility-study), code explanation (use codex-explain). Output: structured reasoning chain with sensitivity analysis.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harnessword for word, first seen Oct 6, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
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 repository102 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adrSkill
- agentctl-setupSkill
- architectureSkill
- askSkill
- best-practicesSkill
- bug-fixSkill
- bump-versionSkill
- check-coverageSkill
- claude-healthSkill
- code-exploreSkill
- code-investigateSkill
- codex-architectSkill
- codex-brainstormSkill
- codex-cli-reviewSkill
- codex-code-reviewSkill
- codex-explainSkill
- codex-implementSkill
- codex-review-branchSkill
- codex-review-docSkill
- codex-review-fastSkill
- codex-reviewSkill
- codex-securitySkill
- codex-setupSkill
- codex-test-genSkill
- codex-test-reviewSkill
- contract-decodeSkill
- create-prSkill
- create-requestSkill
- de-ai-flavorSkill
- debugSkill
- deep-analyzeSkill
- deep-exploreSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dep-auditSkill
- deploy-flowSkill
- dev-security-auditSkill
- doc-refactorSkill
- doc-reviewSkill
- epic-mergeSkill
- feasibility-studySkill
- feature-devSkill
- feature-verifySkill
- generate-runnerSkill
- gh-stackSkill
- git-investigateSkill
- git-profileSkill
- install-hooksSkill
- install-rulesSkill
- install-scriptsSkill
- issue-analyzeSkill
- jiraSkill
- load-pr-reviewSkill
- merge-prepSkill
- necessity-auditSkill
- next-stepSkill
- obsidian-cliSkill
- op-sessionSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- plan-reviewSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 98
Write output file (or stdout if --no-save — which --verify codex rejects, see § Save Behavior)
- Very specific: line 99
If --verify codex: dispatch verification per references/codex-verify-prompt.md
≈ “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
First-Principles Briefing Skill
Trigger
- Keywords: first principles, fp brief, why was this decided, reasoning chain, decision sensitivity, explain decisions, assumption analysis, onboarding brief
When NOT to Use
| Scenario | Alternative |
| PM/CTO executive summary (strip technical details) | /project-brief |
| Pre-doc feasibility analysis (before writing spec) | /feasibility-study |
| Code explanation at function/file level | /codex-explain |
| Code architecture overview | /code-explore |
| Simple document summary | Ask Claude directly |
Command Signature
/fp-brief <doc-path> [--depth brief|normal|deep] [--verify off|codex] [--output <path>] [--no-save]| Flag | Default | Description |
<doc-path> | Required | Source markdown document path |
--depth | normal | Output detail level |
--verify | off | Independent Codex reasoning verification |
--output | Same dir, -fp-brief.md suffix | Custom output path |
--no-save | false | Print to stdout instead of file |
Workflow
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant S as /fp-brief
participant D as Source Doc
participant O as Output File
participant X as Codex (optional)
U->>S: /fp-brief <doc-path> [--depth] [--verify]
Note over S: Phase 1: Input Resolution
S->>S: Validate path (repo boundary)
S->>D: Read source document
S->>S: Redaction scan (fail-safe)
S->>S: Auto-detect format (hybrid)
Note over S: Phase 2: First-Principles Extraction
S->>S: Extract Root Problem (5-Why)
S->>S: Build Assumptions Register
S->>S: Build Reasoning Chain
S->>S: Build Alternative Rejection Log
S->>S: Build Decision Sensitivity
S->>S: Identify Open Unknowns
Note over S: Phase 3: Output Assembly
S->>O: Write *-fp-brief.md
alt --verify codex
S->>X: Independent reasoning verification
X-->>S: Verification Delta
S->>O: Append Verification Delta
end
S-->>U: Report completePhase 1: Input Resolution
- Path validation: Normalize, reject
..traversal, enforce repo boundary - Read source document
- Redaction scan: High-confidence secret patterns → abort; medium → mask
[REDACTED] - Format auto-detection: See
references/detection-rules.md - Select extraction template based on detected format
Phase 2: First-Principles Extraction
See references/extraction-guide.md for section-by-section heuristics.
| Section | Core Question |
| Root Problem | What fundamental truth makes this problem unavoidable? |
| Assumptions Register | What are we taking for granted, and why? |
| Reasoning Chain | How does each decision trace back to a principle? |
| Alternative Rejection Log | Why do other approaches violate our principles? |
| Decision Sensitivity | If assumption X breaks, which decisions collapse? |
| Open Unknowns | What don't we know, and what should we find out? |
For long documents (>500 lines): split by ## headings, extract per-section, merge + dedup.
Phase 3: Output Assembly
- Apply depth filter (section inclusion matrix)
- Apply source citations (reference source doc section headings)
- Apply Evidence Insufficient Rule — never fabricate content for thin sections
- Write output file (or stdout if
--no-save— which--verify codexrejects, see § Save Behavior) - If
--verify codex: dispatch verification perreferences/codex-verify-prompt.md
Depth Levels
| Level | Description | Sections Included |
| brief | Core reasoning only (~500 words max) | Root Problem (full), Assumptions (top 3), Reasoning Chain (key decisions), Sensitivity (top 3) |
| normal | Full reasoning chain (~1500 words max) | All 6 sections with citations |
| deep | Full chain + analysis (~2500 words max) | All 6 sections + challenge questions, evidence ratings, counterfactual analysis, risk-weighted unknowns |
Verification Delta (section 7) appears only when --verify codex is used, at any depth level.
Length policy: These are upper bounds, not targets. If source doc is thin, output will be shorter. The Evidence Insufficient Rule applies: [Evidence insufficient — source doc lacks data for this section].
Output
See references/output-template.md for full template.
# First-Principles Briefing: <title>
> Source: <path> | Depth: <level> | Format: <type> | Generated: <timestamp>
## 1. Root Problem
## 2. Assumptions Register
## 3. Reasoning Chain
## 4. Alternative Rejection Log
## 5. Decision Sensitivity
## 6. Open Unknowns
## 7. Verification Delta (optional)Save Behavior
| Condition | Output Path |
| Default | Same directory as source, -fp-brief.md suffix |
--output <path> | Specified path |
--no-save | stdout only, no file written. Incompatible with --verify codex — refuse the combination and say why: the verification prompt is built around ${OUTPUT_PATH} and instructs Codex to cat that file, so with nothing on disk there is no subject to verify. Run them separately, or drop --no-save for the verified run |
Example: docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md → docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec-fp-brief.md
Verification
- Input path validated (repo boundary enforced)
- Secret redaction scan executed
- Format auto-detection result shown in output header
- Each Reasoning Chain decision cites source section (
Source: §<ref>) - Each Assumptions Register entry has confidence level
- Decision Sensitivity maps assumptions to affected decisions
- Evidence Insufficient markers used where source data is thin
- Output length within depth-level upper bound
- If
--verify codex: Codex researched independently (per codex-invocation rules)
References
- Output template:
references/output-template.md - Detection rules:
references/detection-rules.md - Extraction guide:
references/extraction-guide.md - Codex verification:
references/codex-verify-prompt.md
Examples
Input: /fp-brief docs/features/seek-verdict/2-tech-spec.md
Action: Read spec → detect tech-spec → extract 6 sections → write 2-tech-spec-fp-brief.md
Input: /fp-brief docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md --depth brief
Action: Read spec → extract Root Problem + top assumptions + key decisions + top sensitivity → brief output
Input: /fp-brief docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md --depth deep --verify codex
Action: Read spec → full extraction → Codex independent verification → write with Verification Delta
Input: /fp-brief notes/design-decisions.md --no-save
Action: Read doc → detect unknown format → generic extraction → print to stdoutDoes 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.

