بنقرة واحدة
tasks
Generate an implementation task list from validated spec artifacts
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Generate an implementation task list from validated spec artifacts
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
A method for organizing a prototype that illustrates an agentic, spec-driven PR review—the type a person employs to determine if a merge is acceptable without scrutinizing each alteration. Applicable when a user intends to create, outline, or develop a review interface, a review dashboard, a PR-review process, or a "verdict screen" for an agent-generated modification set, particularly one generated by a specification-driven development (SDD) workflow. Triggers encompass: "review flow", "PR review prototype", "review UI", "how should I present this review", "verdict-first review", "visualize the PR", or asking how a developer should review an agent's output. This is a METHOD skill — it tells you how to think about and lay out the prototype; it does not lock you to a single output format. Do NOT use for performing the code review itself (finding bugs, judging the author) — that is a different skill.
Reviews a pull request in two stages — first interrogating the author to verify they understand and can defend every decision in their own submission (catching AI-generated code forwarded without comprehension), then performing a structural design review of intent fidelity, abstractions, coupling, and failure behavior. The comprehension gate must pass before the design review runs. Use when reviewing a feature PR, vetting incoming code for author ownership, screening for AI slop, or running a deep structural review beyond what CI and linters cover.
Interview the user one question at a time, walking the decision tree, to clarify a feature proposal before implementation
Translate the spec into a complete, traceable set of acceptance criteria in EARS form
Capture feature-level design decisions and the technical constraints that follow, traceable to acceptance criteria
Stress-test the spec pipeline outputs against each other and the codebase before implementation begins
| name | tasks |
| description | Generate an implementation task list from validated spec artifacts |
Translate a validated spec into an ordered, atomic, AC-traceable execution list an implementing agent can run task by task.
Pipeline position: proposal → spec → rules → review → tasks -> execute
You translate a validated spec into a task list written to disk. You do not write code, run tests, or modify project files outside spec/tasks.yaml. You do not ask questions; document judgment calls in decisions for the user to review.
Read spec/review.md (if exists) first. Locate the verdict line under ## Summary.
spec/tasks.yaml.source: review/MAJOR-N or a risk annotation on an existing task. Note in assumptions.Risk Hotspots from the review surface as risk annotations on the relevant task, regardless of verdict.
CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / GEMINI.md, build files, source treeSpec takes precedence over the proposal.
Read agent guidance files. Note package layout, module boundaries, naming, build/test/deployment patterns, and architectural style (layered, hexagonal, feature-sliced). Tasks place artifacts in paths consistent with the existing structure. Phases respect the existing architectural style unless rules.md mandates a deviation.
Pick an organizing principle and state it in organizing_principle:
State the choice and one-line reason in decisions.
coversPlace checkpoints where human review meaningfully reduces risk:
Every phase ends with a checkpoint. Intermediate checkpoints allowed within a phase.
phase-1, phase-2, ... in execution ordertask-N.M (phase number, task number)cp-N (terminal) or cp-N.M (intermediate)dec-1, dec-2, ...Aim for ≤ 5 phases, ≤ 7 tasks per phase. If you exceed:
decisions rather than padding.decisions.Don't pad or merge to fit the numbers.
Every AC in criteria.md appears in some task's covers.acs, OR in coverage_deferrals with a reason. No third option.
tasks:
feature: "<name>"
review_verdict: "<PASS | PASS WITH CONDITIONS>"
organizing_principle: "walking_skeleton | layered | feature_slice | risk_first"
assumptions:
- "<assumption to verify>"
decisions:
- id: dec-1
decision: "<judgment call>"
reason: "<why>"
alternatives: ["<alt 1>", "<alt 2>"]
coverage_deferrals:
- ac: AC-12
reason: "<why not in a task>"
phases:
- id: phase-1
name: "<phase name>"
description: "<what this accomplishes>"
covers: [AC-1, AC-2]
entry_criteria: "<what must be true to start>"
tasks:
- id: task-1.1
name: "<task name>"
description: "<what to do>"
artifact: "<file path or outcome>"
covers:
acs: [AC-1]
rules: [RULE-3, RULE-7]
depends_on: []
complexity: "S | M | L"
validation: "<how to verify>"
risk: "<from Risk Hotspots, if applicable>"
source: "<review/MAJOR-N if addressing a review finding>"
checkpoint:
id: cp-1
description: "<what to review>"
criteria:
- "<criterion 1>"
Required: top-level feature, review_verdict, organizing_principle, phases; phase id, name, description, covers, tasks, checkpoint; task id, name, description, artifact, covers, depends_on, validation; checkpoint id, description, criteria.
Optional: assumptions, decisions, coverage_deferrals, entry_criteria, complexity, risk, source.
Complete only when ALL hold:
criteria.md in some task's covers.acs or in coverage_deferralsdepends_on references an earlier task in execution orderorganizing_principle set and justified in decisionsrisk annotationsdecisionsVerification pass before writing:
depends_on points to a task that has appearedcovers.acs (across all tasks) equals AC IDs in criteria.md minus coverage_deferralscovers.rules is real in rules.mdfeature, review_verdict, organizing_principle, every phase checkpoint presentDo not write a partial file.
Write to spec/tasks.yaml.