القائمة
Create a framing document from notes, messages, or conversation transcripts.
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
Prepare relevant planning artifacts, including optional statechart and Dumplink context, for agent implementation work without overloading context.
Collaboratively shape a problem and compare solution directions before implementation.
Map a chosen solution into places, affordances, consequences, stores, and wiring.
Reconcile an attached image, screenshot, wireframe, mockup, whiteboard, or hand-drawn sketch with existing frame, shaping, and breadboard artifacts. Use when a user drops in a visual, says "see this sketch" or "we are missing something," asks what the visual changes, or wants visual evidence incorporated without silently changing requirements, scope, or the selected shape.
Turn a selected stateful portion of a breadboard into a transition table and Mermaid statechart without changing the breadboard's authority.
Reflect on a breadboard by syncing it to implementation and finding design smells.
| name | framing-doc |
| description | Create a framing document from notes, messages, or conversation transcripts. |
Use this skill when people have talked about a problem but the team still needs a clear statement of what matters and why this is the thing worth solving now.
Create a framing document with four main parts:
When the source already suggests standards by which a solution should be judged, also capture optional criteria candidates for the shaping step.
When the source material includes multiple options or directions, make clear why this frame is being chosen now instead of the others.
If the user has transcripts or multiple source files, clarify:
Read the source material before framing. Do not infer the frame from a partial read.
Capture the raw material first. Keep quotes, notes, or transcript excerpts separate from your interpretation.
This is ground truth. Everything else in the document is interpretation of this material.
When the conversations surfaced multiple possible directions, summarize the option landscape briefly:
Do not invent a roadmap for the others.
Describe what is broken, painful, risky, or missing.
Describe what success looks like at the level of effect.
Add boundaries when there is an obvious wrong direction to avoid.
Use Less about / More about when people were clearly drawing a line around what kind of solution fits and what kind does not.
Capture preliminary standards only when the source clearly suggests what a good solution must achieve or avoid.
Use IDs such as R0, R1, and R2, but mark the section as candidates rather than accepted requirements. The shaping step is responsible for testing, revising, prioritizing, or rejecting them.
Criteria candidates must:
For every problem or outcome line, ask:
If you cannot trace the claim back to the source, cut it.
---
planning: true
shaping: true
artifact_type: frame
status: draft
source_of_truth: true
feeds:
- shaping
- context-packet
---
# [Project] — Frame
# Context Card
## Use this when
An agent is deciding whether later shaping, breadboarding, or implementation still fits the original problem and desired outcome.
## Must preserve
- source-separated evidence
- problem/outcome distinction
- explicit boundaries and non-goals
## Ignore unless asked
- rejected option details beyond the brief option landscape
## Source
> ...
## Pre-work
- option landscape
- why this one now
## Problem
- ...
## Outcome
- ...
## Less about
- ...
## More about
- ...
## Criteria candidates (optional)
| ID | Candidate criterion | Evidence or inference |
|---|---|---|
| R0 | ... | ... |