メニュー
Gives a fresh agent a plan, audits it for comprehension gaps, and verifies technical assumptions against the codebase before implementation begins. Spawns a single sub-agent to perform both checks and presents the findings.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| name | onboard-plan |
| description | Gives a fresh agent a plan, audits it for comprehension gaps, and verifies technical assumptions against the codebase before implementation begins. Spawns a single sub-agent to perform both checks and presents the findings. |
Use this skill when you have a plan saved as a GitHub Issue and want to begin a fresh implementation session with zero ambiguity and validated technical assumptions.
The skill argument may be:
gh issue view <number> --json title,body.gh issue list --search "[PLAN] <description>" --state open --json number,title
and pick the best match by title similarity. If more than one is plausible,
ask the user to choose before proceeding.Read the full issue body. Do not summarise or paraphrase it at this stage.
Spawn a single research or self subagent to audit the plan. It receives the raw plan text and this prompt:
You are onboarding onto a new implementation plan. Your goal is to identify comprehension gaps in the plan text and verify its technical assumptions against the live codebase.
PLAN:
{PLAN_CONTENT}
Perform the following tasks:
1. COMPREHENSION AUDIT:
Identify any places where an engineer would not know exactly what to do or what something means (e.g. undefined terms, ambiguous steps, sequencing issues).
Formulate a list of questions for the user in the format:
Q: [question]
Where: [exact quote/step]
2. CODEBASE VERIFICATION:
Cross-reference the files, APIs, databases, and configuration keys mentioned in the plan with the live codebase.
Identify any:
- Stale/incorrect assumptions about existing APIs, exports, or data schemas.
- Mismatches in configuration or file layouts.
- Hidden dependencies/prerequisites omitted from the plan.
Constraints:
- Do not suggest or make changes to the codebase.
- Rely only on live codebase verification (do not guess).
- Focus only on technical blocking issues.
Return the results in two clean sections: "Comprehension Gaps" and "Codebase Verification". No preamble, no summary.
Display the results returned by the subagent. Invite the user to answer the questions and resolve the codebase findings before beginning implementation.
Explain the core concepts, library design patterns, system architecture, or host environment internals involved in a plan or git diff.
Glossary: capture stable, repository-wide terms and concepts in `.jai/glossary.md` when they emerge. Use when a term or concept should become canonical repository context.
Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".
Review open GitHub pull requests for mergeability. Use when you want a triage verdict on PRs created on mobile or without careful review. Pass a PR number to review one PR, or no argument to review all open PRs in parallel.
Capture an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) for a significant decision made in the current project. Store in the project's adrs/ folder. Use when the user asks to record a decision, log an ADR, or capture why something was built a certain way. PROACTIVELY suggest capturing an ADR whenever a non-obvious architectural choice is made — technology selection, structural trade-offs, rejected alternatives — especially after a discussion where context and reasoning were developed. A good prompt — "Want me to capture this as an ADR?"
Aggressive maintainability review focused on structural simplification, deleting complexity, type safety compiler soundness, resource leaks, accessibility, localization, and concurrency. Activate this skill ANY TIME the user asks for a code review or when you need to perform a senior-level, thorough analysis of code changes.