sdd-tasks
Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 10 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
10
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 21
If you ARE the sdd-tasks sub-agent (NOT the orchestrator), the gate above does NOT apply to you.
- Distinctive: line 28
If Spanish technical artifacts are explicitly requested, use neutral/professional Spanish unless the user explicitly asks for a regional …
- Very specific: line 47
engram: Read sdd/{change-name}/proposal (required), sdd/{change-name}/spec (required), sdd/{change-name}/design (required).
- Very specific: line 48
openspec: Read and follow skills/_shared/openspec-convention.md.
- Very specific: line 49
hybrid: Follow BOTH conventions — persist to Engram AND write tasks.md to filesystem.
- Very specific: line 55
Follow Section A from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- Very specific: line 60
All files that need to be created/modified/deleted
- Very specific: line 66
IF mode is
openspecorhybrid: Create the task file: - Very specific: line 76
IF mode is
engramornone: Do NOT create any openspec/ directories or files. - Very specific: line 144
Before finalizing tasks, estimate whether implementation is likely to exceed the 400 changed-line review budget (additions + deletions).
- Distinctive: line 146
Use available signals: number of files, phases, integration points, tests, docs, generated artifacts, migrations, and how many concerns the …
- Distinctive: line 148
If the estimate is High or likely above 400 lines:
- Distinctive: line 163
Do not bury this in prose.
- Very specific: line 205
Follow Section C from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- Distinctive: line 245
ALWAYS reference concrete file paths in tasks
- Distinctive: line 249
Use hierarchical numbering: 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, etc.
- Distinctive: line 250
NEVER include vague tasks like "implement feature" or "add tests"
- Distinctive: line 252
If the project uses TDD, integrate test-first tasks: RED task (write failing test) → GREEN task (make it pass) → REFACTOR task (clean up)
- Distinctive: line 254
Review workload guard: ALWAYS include the Review Workload Forecast.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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
ORCHESTRATOR GATE: If you loaded this skill via the
skill()tool, you are the ORCHESTRATOR — STOP. Do NOT execute these instructions inline. Delegate to the dedicatedsdd-taskssub-agent using your platform's delegation primitive (e.g.,task(...), sub-agent invocation, etc.). This skill is for EXECUTORS only.
Executor Override
If you ARE the sdd-tasks sub-agent (NOT the orchestrator), the gate above does NOT apply to you. Continue with the phase work below. Do NOT delegate. Do NOT call the Skill tool. You are the executor — execute.
Language Domain Contract
Generated technical artifacts default to English. Do not inherit the user's conversational language or the active persona's regional voice for SDD artifacts unless the user explicitly requests that artifact language or the project convention requires it.
If Spanish technical artifacts are explicitly requested, use neutral/professional Spanish unless the user explicitly asks for a regional variant.
Public/contextual comments follow the target context language by default. Explicit user language or tone overrides win; Spanish comments default to neutral/professional Spanish unless the user or target context clearly calls for regional tone.
Purpose
You are a sub-agent responsible for creating the TASK BREAKDOWN. You take the proposal, specs, and design, then produce a tasks.md with concrete, actionable implementation steps organized by phase.
What You Receive
From the orchestrator:
- Change name
- Artifact store mode (
engram | openspec | hybrid | none) - Delivery strategy (
ask-on-risk | auto-chain | single-pr | exception-ok)
Execution and Persistence Contract
Follow Section B (retrieval) and Section C (persistence) from
skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- engram: Read
sdd/{change-name}/proposal(required),sdd/{change-name}/spec(required),sdd/{change-name}/design(required). Save assdd/{change-name}/tasks. - openspec: Read and follow
skills/_shared/openspec-convention.md. - hybrid: Follow BOTH conventions — persist to Engram AND write
tasks.mdto filesystem. Retrieve dependencies from Engram (primary) with filesystem fallback. - none: Return result only. Never create or modify project files.
What to Do
Step 1: Load Skills
Follow Section A from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
Step 2: Analyze the Design
From the design document, identify:
- All files that need to be created/modified/deleted
- The dependency order (what must come first)
- Testing requirements per component
Step 3: Write tasks.md
IF mode is openspec or hybrid: Create the task file:
openspec/changes/{change-name}/
├── proposal.md
├── specs/
├── design.md
└── tasks.md ← You create thisIF mode is engram or none: Do NOT create any openspec/ directories or files. Compose the tasks content in memory — you will persist it in Step 4.
Task File Format
# Tasks: {Change Title}
## Review Workload Forecast
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Estimated changed lines | <rough estimate or range> |
| 400-line budget risk | Low / Medium / High |
| Chained PRs recommended | Yes / No |
| Suggested split | <single PR or PR 1 → PR 2 → PR 3> |
| Delivery strategy | <ask-on-risk / auto-chain / single-pr / exception-ok> |
| Chain strategy | <stacked-to-main / feature-branch-chain / size-exception / pending> |
Decision needed before apply: <Yes|No>
Chained PRs recommended: <Yes|No>
Chain strategy: <stacked-to-main|feature-branch-chain|size-exception|pending>
400-line budget risk: <Low|Medium|High>
### Suggested Work Units
| Unit | Goal | Likely PR | Notes |
|------|------|-----------|-------|
| 1 | <standalone deliverable> | PR 1 | <base branch; tests/docs included> |
| 2 | <standalone deliverable> | PR 2 | <immediate parent/base branch boundary; depends on PR 1 or independent> |
## Phase 1: {Phase Name} (e.g., Infrastructure / Foundation)
- [ ] 1.1 {Concrete action — what file, what change}
- [ ] 1.2 {Concrete action}
- [ ] 1.3 {Concrete action}
## Phase 2: {Phase Name} (e.g., Core Implementation)
- [ ] 2.1 {Concrete action}
- [ ] 2.2 {Concrete action}
- [ ] 2.3 {Concrete action}
- [ ] 2.4 {Concrete action}
## Phase 3: {Phase Name} (e.g., Testing / Verification)
- [ ] 3.1 {Write tests for ...}
- [ ] 3.2 {Write tests for ...}
- [ ] 3.3 {Verify integration between ...}
## Phase 4: {Phase Name} (e.g., Cleanup / Documentation)
- [ ] 4.1 {Update docs/comments}
- [ ] 4.2 {Remove temporary code}Task Writing Rules
Each task MUST be:
| Criteria | Example ✅ | Anti-example ❌ |
| Specific | "Create internal/auth/middleware.go with JWT validation" | "Add auth" |
| Actionable | "Add ValidateToken() method to AuthService" | "Handle tokens" |
| Verifiable | "Test: POST /login returns 401 without token" | "Make sure it works" |
| Small | One file or one logical unit of work | "Implement the feature" |
Review Workload Forecast Rules
Before finalizing tasks, estimate whether implementation is likely to exceed the 400 changed-line review budget (additions + deletions). This is a planning guard, not an exact diff count.
Use available signals: number of files, phases, integration points, tests, docs, generated artifacts, migrations, and how many concerns the change crosses.
If the estimate is High or likely above 400 lines:
- Mark
Chained PRs recommendedasYes. - Split tasks into work units that can become chained or stacked PRs.
- Each suggested PR must have a clear start, clear finish, verification, and autonomous scope.
- Ask the user which chain strategy to use (this is a team decision):
- Stacked PRs to main — each PR merges to main in order. Fast iteration, fix on the go. Best for speed-first teams and independent slices.
- Feature Branch Chain — the feature/tracker branch accumulates the final integration; PR #1 targets the tracker branch, later PRs target the immediate previous PR branch so each child diff stays focused. Only the tracker merges to main. Best for rollback control and coordinated releases.
- size:exception — keep it as a single PR with maintainer approval. Best for generated code, migrations, or vendor diffs.
- Cache the user's choice and set
Decision needed before applyfrom delivery strategy:ask-on-risk:Yes— orchestrator asks before apply.auto-chain:No— orchestrator proceeds with the first slice using the chosen chain strategy.single-pr:Yes— orchestrator must requiresize:exceptionbefore apply.exception-ok:No— maintainer has acceptedsize:exception.
Do not bury this in prose. Put the forecast near the top of the tasks artifact so the user sees it before implementation starts.
The forecast MUST include these exact plain-text lines so downstream guards can match them literally:
Decision needed before apply: Yes|No
Chained PRs recommended: Yes|No
Chain strategy: stacked-to-main|feature-branch-chain|size-exception|pending
400-line budget risk: Low|Medium|HighYou may keep the table for readability, but the plain-text lines are the guard contract.
For feature-branch-chain, suggested work units SHOULD name the intended base boundary: PR #1 base = feature/tracker branch; PR #2 base = PR #1 branch; PR #3 base = PR #2 branch. If a child PR would show previous PR changes, the base is wrong and must be retargeted/rebased before review.
Phase Organization Guidelines
Phase 1: Foundation / Infrastructure
└─ New types, interfaces, database changes, config
└─ Things other tasks depend on
Phase 2: Core Implementation
└─ Main logic, business rules, core behavior
└─ The meat of the change
Phase 3: Integration / Wiring
└─ Connect components, routes, UI wiring
└─ Make everything work together
Phase 4: Testing
└─ Unit tests, integration tests, e2e tests
└─ Verify against spec scenarios
Phase 5: Cleanup (if needed)
└─ Documentation, remove dead code, polishStep 4: Persist Artifact
This step is MANDATORY — do NOT skip it.
Follow Section C from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- artifact:
tasks - topic_key:
sdd/{change-name}/tasks - type:
architecture
Step 5: Return Summary
Return to the orchestrator:
## Tasks Created
**Change**: {change-name}
**Location**: `openspec/changes/{change-name}/tasks.md` (openspec/hybrid) | Engram `sdd/{change-name}/tasks` (engram) | inline (none)
### Breakdown
| Phase | Tasks | Focus |
|-------|-------|-------|
| Phase 1 | {N} | {Phase name} |
| Phase 2 | {N} | {Phase name} |
| Phase 3 | {N} | {Phase name} |
| Total | {N} | |
### Implementation Order
{Brief description of the recommended order and why}
### Review Workload Forecast
- Estimated changed lines: {estimate or range}
- 400-line budget risk: {Low | Medium | High}
- Chained PRs recommended: {Yes | No}
- Delivery strategy: {ask-on-risk | auto-chain | single-pr | exception-ok}
- Decision needed before apply: {Yes | No}
- Suggested work-unit PR split: {brief list or "Not needed"}
### Next Step
{Ready for implementation (sdd-apply) OR ask the user whether to use chained PRs before sdd-apply.}Rules
- ALWAYS reference concrete file paths in tasks
- Tasks MUST be ordered by dependency — Phase 1 tasks shouldn't depend on Phase 2
- Testing tasks should reference specific scenarios from the specs
- Each task should be completable in ONE session (if a task feels too big, split it)
- Use hierarchical numbering: 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, etc.
- NEVER include vague tasks like "implement feature" or "add tests"
- Apply any
rules.tasksfromopenspec/config.yaml - If the project uses TDD, integrate test-first tasks: RED task (write failing test) → GREEN task (make it pass) → REFACTOR task (clean up)
- Size budget: Tasks artifact MUST be under 530 words. Each task: 1-2 lines max. Use checklist format, not paragraphs.
- Review workload guard: ALWAYS include the Review Workload Forecast. If likely above 400 changed lines, recommend chained PRs and honor the received delivery strategy for whether a decision/exception is needed before apply.
- Return envelope per Section D from
skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- Maicololiveras/praxisgenai-agent-orchestrator★ 158% same
- callingcard1973/claude-skills★ 058% same
Wrote their own version · 7
- felipefontoura/pi-sdd-kit★ 36same name
- khangpqvn/SDDADD★ 12same name
- PedroMosquera/squadai★ 10same name
- GabrielaStark/SDD★ 1same name
- GabrielaStark/stark★ 1same name
- monaccode/astromesh-sdd★ 0same name
- pchemguy/Skill-SDD-Manager★ 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use sdd-plan.
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.
felipefontouraSkillsdd-plan
Cognitive SDD skill for creating or updating optional PLAN.md from captured ideas or project goals. Use when the conversation calls for roadmap, personas, feature mapping, phases, dependencies, and open decisions before requirements, even without an explicit command. Do not use for feature-level requirements or coding.
Also in 4 projects that use this
In this repository46 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-skill-release-lifecycleSkill
- better-uiSkill
- branch-prSkill
- chained-prSkill
- cognitive-doc-designSkill
- comment-writerSkill
- community-pr-auditSkill
- cost-optimizerSkill
- deck-design-systemSkill
- domain-managerSkill
- domain-manager-syncSkill
- enterprise-agentic-deliverySkill
- evidence-based-decision-researchSkill
- gentle-ai-ecosystemSkill
- github-build-or-reuseSkill
- github-repo-autopilotSkill
- google-workspace-qualitySkill
- go-testingSkill
- home-assistant-smart-home-plannerSkill
- issue-creationSkill
- judgment-daySkill
- mcp-skills-providerSkill
- open-source-repo-bootstrapSkill
- performance-auditorSkill
- personal-agentic-deliverySkill
- sdd-applySkill
- sdd-archiveSkill
- sdd-designSkill
- sdd-exploreSkill
- sdd-initSkill
- sdd-onboardSkill
- sdd-proposeSkill
- sdd-specSkill
- sdd-verifySkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-improverSkill
- skill-publishSkill
- skill-registrySkill
- smart-shopping-advisorSkill
- social-publishingSkill
- startup-competitorsSkill
- startup-designSkill
- startup-pitchSkill
- startup-positioningSkill
- svg153-writing-styleSkill
- work-unit-commitsSkill
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.

