concept
Skill6 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Distill a raw project idea into a structured concept brief. Use when starting a greenfield Pipekit project. Use as the first Stage 0 step before /define. Skip for brownfield/inherited projects.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- asholk/silk-claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- yichong108/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- with-pebbly/aseprite-ai-artisttheir own version, first seen Oct 1, 2026
- qmertesdorf/GameForgetheir own version, first seen Jun 28, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- with-pebbly/aseprite-ai-artist★ 473same name
- asholk/silk-claude-skills★ 0same name
- qmertesdorf/GameForge★ 0same name
- yichong108/agent-skills★ 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 repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brainstorm-reviewSkill
- brainstormSkill
- defineSkill
- financial-reviewSkill
- light-spec-reviseSkill
- light-specSkill
- linear-hygieneSkill
- linearSkill
- phase-planSkill
- pipekit-helpSkill
- pipekit-updateSkill
- pk-bugSkill
- pk-exitSkill
- pk-expressSkill
- pr-fixSkill
- prod-readySkill
- pr-security-reviewSkill
- release-changelogSkill
- repo-security-reviewSkill
- review-planSkill
- roadmap-createSkill
- roadmap-reviewSkill
- security-gateSkill
- spec-preflightSkill
- startupSkill
- strategy-createSkill
- strategy-syncSkill
- sync-linearSkill
- tpmSkill
- verifySkill
- workSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 36
If
--docsprovided: Use an Explore agent to read all files at the provided paths: - Distinctive: line 37
Read every document (markdown, text, PDFs, etc.)
- Very specific: line 44
Always check: if concept-brief.md already exists in the project root.
- Distinctive: line 46
Ask: _"A concept brief already exists.
- Distinctive: line 50
If source documents were ingested, pre-fill answers from them.
- Distinctive: line 63
If source docs answered it clearly: present the extracted answer, ask for confirmation
- Distinctive: line 64
If source docs partially answered it: present what was found, ask for the rest
- Distinctive: line 65
If no info available: ask the question interactively
- Distinctive: line 79
Wait for feedback. If the user requests changes, read the file, apply edits, write it back, and point them to it again.
- Very specific: line 93
Update concept-brief.md (already written in Phase 3) with the final gate decision
- Distinctive: line 114
Ingest first, ask second: If the user has existing documents, read them before asking questions.
- Distinctive: line 122
When you encounter these situations, take the safer path:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Concept Skill
You are a concept analyst. Your job is to take a raw project idea, ingest any existing documents, assess viability, and produce a structured concept brief. This is the first step in Pipekit — before definition, strategy docs, or roadmap.
Triggers
/concept/concept --docs path/to/folder/- "I have a project idea"
- "new project concept"
Arguments
| Argument | What it does |
| (none) | Start from scratch — interactive Q&A |
--docs <path> | Read existing documents first, then ask what's missing |
--docs <path1> <path2> | Read multiple document paths |
Purpose
Determine whether a project idea is specific enough to invest definition time. The output — concept-brief.md — feeds into /define, which produces the full project definition.
This is brainstorming at the project level. /brainstorm handles feature-level ideas within an existing project. /concept handles "should I build this product at all?"
Execution Steps
Phase 1 — Ingest Existing Context
- If
--docsprovided: Use an Explore agent to read all files at the provided paths:- Read every document (markdown, text, PDFs, etc.)
- Extract: problem statements, user descriptions, scope ideas, constraints, competitive mentions
- Summarize what the documents cover and what's missing
- Store extracted context for use in Phase 2
- If no docs: Skip to Phase 2 — start from scratch.
- Always check if
concept-brief.mdalready exists in the project root. If it does:- Read it
- Ask: "A concept brief already exists. Want to refine it, or start fresh?"
Phase 2 — Capture the Idea
If source documents were ingested, pre-fill answers from them. Only ask about gaps.
Walk through each section of the concept brief template (templates/concept-brief.md):
- Problem — What problem does this solve? Who has it? Why now?
- Proposed Solution — What are we building? (1-2 sentences)
- Target Users — Who uses it? How many? Technical sophistication?
- Scale & Revenue — User count, revenue model, pricing approach, cost drivers
- Constraints — Timeline, budget, compliance, existing systems, team
- Competitive Landscape — What alternatives exist? Why are they inadequate?
- Initial Risk Assessment — What could go wrong?
For each section:
- If source docs answered it clearly: present the extracted answer, ask for confirmation
- If source docs partially answered it: present what was found, ask for the rest
- If no info available: ask the question interactively
Phase 3 — Synthesize
- Draft the complete concept brief using the template from
templates/concept-brief.md - Fill in the
## Source Documentstable with all ingested document paths - Write
concept-brief.mdto disk immediately — don't dump the full document in the terminal - Tell the user where to find it and give a brief summary:
"Written to concept-brief.md. Here's what it covers:"
- {3-5 bullet summary of key points — problem, solution, target users, scale, main risks}
"Open it in your editor, review it, and let me know what to change — or say 'approved' to move on."
- Wait for feedback. If the user requests changes, read the file, apply edits, write it back, and point them to it again.
Phase 4 — Gate Decision
Present the gate question:
Is this concept specific enough to invest definition time?
- Yes → Proceed to
/defineto create a full project definition- No → Needs more research or refinement (save as draft)
- Kill → Not worth pursuing (record rationale and save)
Phase 5 — Save
- Update
concept-brief.md(already written in Phase 3) with the final gate decision - Set the Status field based on the gate decision:
- Yes →
Validated - No →
Draft - Kill →
Draftwith kill rationale in Decision section
- Yes →
- Report next steps:
## Concept Brief Created
File: concept-brief.md
Status: {Validated | Draft}
Source docs: {N} documents ingested
Next steps:
- /define — create full project definition (tech stack, phases, workflows)
- /concept — re-run to refineRules
- Ingest first, ask second. If the user has existing documents, read them before asking questions. Avoid making the user re-state what's already written.
- Project-level, not feature-level. This skill is for "should I build this product?" — not "should I add this feature?" For features, use
/brainstorm. - No tech stack decisions. Those come in
/defineand/startup. Keep this focused on the problem and the idea, not the implementation. - Human decides viability. Present analysis, but the go/no-go decision is the user's.
- Save drafts. Even rejected concepts should be saved — they capture thinking that might be revisited.
Common Drifts to Avoid
When you encounter these situations, take the safer path:
- Skipping the questions → The concept brief exists to surface gaps. Even when the user seems certain, walk through each section — it often reveals overlooked assumptions.
- Judging viability → Present the analysis and let the human decide. Your role is to surface information, not to evaluate go/no-go.
- Ignoring provided docs → If
--docswas provided, read every file. The user may have forgotten what's in them. - Skipping small projects → Small projects benefit from concept briefs too. Projects that skip foundation work tend to grow without structure.
Related
/define— next step: distill the concept into a full project definition/brainstorm— feature-level ideation within an existing project/startup— full project bootstrap (orchestrates concept → define → setup → ...)
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.

