Menu
Turn the current conversation into a spec document — no interview, no issue tracker publishing, just synthesis of what has already been discussed.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match the user's request, PRD, or explicit spec?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, or describes a performance regression.
Use when the user asks for a rich explanation of a code change, diff, branch, or PR. Produces HTML output.
Walk the user through the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) as a guided, interactive code tour — the live Neovim counterpart to the `explain-html` skill. Drives the user's Neovim (scroll, highlight, virtual-text annotations) when connected, and degrades to prose with file:line references otherwise. Advances one stop at a time and waits for the user to say "next". Use when the user wants to be walked through a diff/branch/PR, asks for a guided tour or walkthrough of changes, or says "tour since X" / "lead me through the changes".
Implement a tightly scoped piece of work from the current conversation, an explicit request, or a spec file.
Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
| name | to-spec |
| description | Turn the current conversation into a spec document — no interview, no issue tracker publishing, just synthesis of what has already been discussed. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a spec (you may know this document as a PRD). Do not interview the user — synthesize what you already know.
This repo does not use an agent-managed issue tracker as the default work-packaging layer. Specs are durable context for humans and future agent sessions, not tickets to publish.
Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the spec, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.
Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can. The fewer seams across the codebase, the better — the ideal number is one.
Check with the user that these seams match their expectations.
Default destination:
.scratch/<short-feature-slug>/PRD.md and ask before writing.Do not create issues, apply triage labels, or publish to an issue tracker.
The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.
The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.
A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:
This list of user stories should be extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.
A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
A description of the things that are out of scope for this spec.
Any further notes about the feature.