project-brief
Skill96 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turns a rough idea, stakeholder request, or email thread into a structured project brief with a clear problem statement, goals, success criteria, scope, stakeholders, and risks. Asks clarifying questions one at a time to fill gaps, then delivers a complete SharePoint-ready brief. Use when a user wants to scope a new project, formalize a request that came in through email or conversation, or create a brief before moving into full design or planning. Triggers include "write a project brief", "turn this email into a brief", "help me scope this project", "I need to document this request", or when a user describes a rough idea and wants a structured starting point.
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Git-FED/MuseAi-Skills-Guidetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Rome-1/obsidian-claude-startertheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- DoKu67/claude-code-skilstheir own version, first seen Oct 16, 2026
- anhvu3594/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- hmj1026/dhpktheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flowtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192same name
- Git-FED/MuseAi-Skills-Guide★ 121same name
- flurdy/agent-skills★ 9same name
- MarcoZorn/agencykit★ 6same name
- Rome-1/obsidian-claude-starter★ 5same name
- DoKu67/claude-code-skils★ 4same name
- erendevelops/erendev-claude-skills★ 2same name
- hmj1026/dhpk★ 2same name
- anhvu3594/claude-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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- authoring-sharepoint-markdownSkill
- autoresearchSkill
- brainstorming-design-docsSkill
- copy-editingSkill
- decision-logSkill
- deck-assemblySkill
- design-directionSkill
- executive-summarySkill
- faq-buildingSkill
- find-expertSkill
- forest-styleSkill
- gap-analysisSkill
- hiring-pipeline-reportSkill
- improve-skillsSkill
- ingest-knowledgeSkill
- kb-admin-reportSkill
- linkedin-post-writingSkill
- list-formattingSkill
- log-knowledge-gapSkill
- meeting-notesSkill
- quarterly-expense-reportSkill
- ralph-loopSkill
- site-analyzerSkill
- style-guidelinesSkill
- uppababy-brand-reviewSkill
- youtube-descriptionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 28
Ask the user to describe the project or request in their own words.
- Distinctive: line 42
Stop and confirm your understanding before moving to Phase 2.
- Distinctive: line 48
Ask the user to state the goals of the project.
- Distinctive: line 55
If the user cannot articulate a success criterion for a goal, put the goal in the Open Questions section rather than in Goals.
- Distinctive: line 179
Every goal in the table has a success criterion — not "TBD"
- Distinctive: line 181
Every risk has a mitigation or is flagged as an open question — risks without mitigations belong in Open Questions
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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
Project Brief
This skill takes a rough project idea or stakeholder request and turns it into a structured, decision-ready brief. It asks targeted questions to fill gaps, then delivers a document that defines scope, goals, and context clearly enough to move into planning or approvals.
Scope: Produces prose and Markdown only. Does not write code, scripts, or formulas.
Core Principles
Ask one question at a time. A project brief requires specific information. Asking everything at once produces vague answers. Work sequentially — each answer shapes the next question.
A brief is not a design doc. A project brief defines what and why, not how. Keep implementation details out unless they directly affect scope or feasibility. The design comes later.
Force choices. Vague goals and undefined scope are the most common brief failures. Push until each goal has a success criterion and every scope boundary is explicit.
The Process
Phase 1 — Understand the Request
Ask the user to describe the project or request in their own words. Do not prompt with structure yet — let them give the raw version.
Then ask clarifying questions one at a time to establish:
The trigger. What created this project? A problem that surfaced, an opportunity identified, a stakeholder ask, a regulatory requirement? Understanding the trigger shapes everything else.
The problem or opportunity. What is happening today that this project changes or improves? What is the cost of doing nothing?
The requester and primary owner. Who is asking for this? Who will own it once it is underway? These may be different people.
The intended audience or beneficiary. Who does this project serve? Whose work or experience changes as a result?
The timeline or urgency. Is there a hard deadline? A soft target? No date yet? Knowing this determines how much detail the brief needs to support.
Stop and confirm your understanding before moving to Phase 2. Summarize the request in two to three sentences and ask if that captures it accurately.
Phase 2 — Establish Goals and Success Criteria
Ask the user to state the goals of the project. Then for each goal, ask: "How will you know this goal was achieved?"
Push past vague goals. When a goal is not testable, say so and offer a more specific version:
- "Improve collaboration" → "Teams can find shared documents without asking in chat"
- "Reduce manual work" → "The approval process takes under 10 minutes per request, down from 45"
- "Better visibility" → "Leadership can see project status without requesting a status update"
If the user cannot articulate a success criterion for a goal, put the goal in the Open Questions section rather than in Goals. Untestable goals are not goals — they are intentions.
Phase 3 — Define Scope
Scope in and scope out are equally important. Ask explicitly about both.
In scope: What will this project produce, cover, or change? Be specific about deliverables, systems, teams, or processes involved.
Out of scope: What will this project explicitly not address, even if related? List items people might assume are included but are not. Out-of-scope items prevent future misunderstandings.
Dependencies: What does this project require from other teams, systems, or decisions before it can proceed or complete?
Phase 4 — Identify Stakeholders and Risks
Stakeholders: Who needs to be informed, involved, or consulted? Who has approval authority? Who might block or slow the project?
Risks: What could prevent this project from succeeding? What assumptions is the brief making that could prove false? Keep to the two or three most significant risks. Each risk should be paired with a mitigation or flagged as an open question if no mitigation is known.
Output Structure
Assemble the brief in this order:
# Project Brief: [Project Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**Requested by:** [Name and role]
**Owner:** [Name and role]
**Status:** Draft
---
## Problem or Opportunity
[Two to four sentences: what is happening today, why it matters, what the cost of inaction is.
Grounded in specifics, not generalities.]
---
## Goals and Success Criteria
| Goal | Success Criterion |
|------|------------------|
| [Goal stated as an outcome] | [How you will know it was achieved] |
| [Goal stated as an outcome] | [How you will know it was achieved] |
---
## Proposed Approach
[Optional at brief stage — include only if a direction has already been decided or if there is
an obvious and uncontroversial path. If approach is still open, omit and note it in Open Questions.]
---
## Scope
**In scope:**
- [Item]
- [Item]
**Out of scope:**
- [Item]
- [Item]
**Dependencies:**
- [Item]
---
## Stakeholders
| Name / Role | Involvement |
|-------------|------------|
| [Name, Role] | Decision-maker / Contributor / Informed |
---
## Risks
| Risk | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|-----------|
| [Risk description] | High / Medium / Low | [Mitigation, or "Open question"] |
---
## Timeline
[Brief narrative or table of target dates. Use phases with relative timing if hard dates are
unknown: "Phase 1: 2–3 weeks from kickoff". Omit if no timeline has been discussed.]
---
## Open Questions
- [Question] — Owner: [Name, or "TBD"]
- [Question] — Owner: [Name, or "TBD"]
Omit sections that are empty. Do not add placeholder headers for sections with no content.
What to Skip and When
Small, well-scoped requests: Combine Problem and Goals into a single section; skip Timeline and Risks unless the requester specifically needs them.
Requests with no clear owner yet: Flag ownership as an open question rather than leaving it blank; an ownerless project brief is not actionable.
Projects that already have an approved approach: Skip "Proposed Approach" with a note that approach is in the design document.
Quality Checks
Before delivering, verify:
- Every goal in the table has a success criterion — not "TBD"
- Scope out is explicit, not empty — even a single line matters
- Every risk has a mitigation or is flagged as an open question — risks without mitigations belong in Open Questions
- The problem statement explains the cost of inaction, not just the current state
- Stakeholders have named owners, not "relevant teams" or "leadership"
Output Format
Deliver:
- Complete project brief — Markdown, ready to paste into a SharePoint Markdown web part or page
- Open items list — Any information the user still needs to fill in before the brief is ready to share (missing owner, unconfirmed deadline, undefined success criteria, etc.)
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.

