아이디어 정리, 구현, 오류 조사에 맞는 관련 스킬과 사용 순서를 안내합니다. 작업의 규모와 단계에 따라 다음 절차를 선택하도록 돕습니다.
- 아이디어부터 구현까지의 절차 선택
- 오류 조사를 시작할 지점 찾기
- 여러 세션에 걸친 개발 진행 방식 상담
한 번의 대화로 다루기 어려운 큰 기획이나 변경을 결정할 질문과 의존 관계로 정리합니다. 이슈 관리 도구에 판단 근거를 남기고 실행까지의 경로를 명확히 합니다.
Plan a huge chunk of work (more than one agent session can hold) as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear.
wayfinder는 한 번의 에이전트 대화에 담기 어려운 일을 결정할 질문의 지도로 정리합니다. 먼저 도달할 목표를 정하고 이슈 관리 도구에 전체 지도와 하위 판단 티켓을 만듭니다. 질문 사이의 의존 관계를 연결하고 착수 가능한 것부터 해결합니다. 판단의 세부 내용은 각 티켓에 남기고 지도에는 요점과 링크를 기록합니다. 아직 질문을 구체화할 수 없는 영역과 이번 작업의 범위 밖인 영역도 구분합니다.
대규모 변경이나 강좌 제작처럼 진행 경로가 보이지 않는 기획에 적합합니다. 여러 대화에 걸쳐 판단 과정을 공유하고, 조사와 시제품 제작, 사용자와의 논의로 다음 질문을 구체화합니다.
원칙적으로 계획을 만드는 스킬이며 결과물 구현은 별도 작업입니다. 이슈 관리 도구를 지정하지 않으면 로컬 Markdown 방식을 사용합니다. 질문 유형에 따라 research, prototype, grilling, domain-modeling을 사용합니다. 보통 한 번의 대화에서 티켓 하나를 해결하며 조사 티켓은 예외로 병렬 처리합니다.
이 소개문은 공개된 SKILL.md를 바탕으로 AI(OpenAI Codex)가 작성했습니다. 정확한 사양은 아래 원문을 확인하세요.
AI가 SKILL.md의 내용만을 근거로 4가지 관점에서 판정했습니다. 스타 수나 인기도는 판정에 넣지 않았습니다.
총점은 각 항목을 A=25점, B=15점, C=5점으로 더한 값입니다. 2026년 10월 19일 기준으로 AI(OpenAI Codex)가 판정했습니다. 참고용이므로 설치 전에 원문도 확인해 주세요.
설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
A loose idea has arrived, too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog: the way from here to the destination isn't visible yet. Wayfinding is about finding that way, not charging at the destination. This skill charts the way as a shared map on the repo's issue tracker, then works its decision tickets (questions whose resolution is a decision, not slices of a build to execute) one at a time until the route is clear.
The destination varies per effort, and naming it is the first act of charting: it shapes every ticket. It might be a spec to hand off and iterate on, a decision to lock before planning starts, or a change made in place like a data-structure migration. The map is domain-agnostic: engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape.
Wayfinder is planning by default: each ticket resolves a decision, and the map is done when the way is clear, with nothing left to decide before someone goes and does the thing. The pull to just do the work is usually the signal you've reached the edge of the map and it's time to hand off. An effort can override this in its Notes, carrying execution into the map itself, but absent that, produce decisions, not deliverables.
Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a name: its title. In everything the human reads (narration, the map's Decisions-so-far), refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of #42, #43, #44 is illegible; names read at a glance. The id and URL don't vanish; a name wraps its link, but they ride inside the name, never stand in for it.
The map is a single issue on this repo's issue tracker, labelled wayfinder:map, the canonical artifact. Its tickets are child issues of the map.
The map is an index, not a store. It lists the decisions made and points at the tickets that hold their detail; a decision lives in exactly one place, its ticket, so the map never restates it, only gists it and links.
Where the map, its child tickets, blocking, and frontier queries physically live is tracker-specific. The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run /setup-matt-pocock-skills. Consult the tracker doc's "Wayfinding operations" section for how this repo expresses them. If no tracker has been provided, default to the local-markdown tracker.
The whole map at low resolution, loaded once per session. Open tickets are not listed: they are open child issues, found by query.
## Destination
<what reaching the end of this map looks like: the spec, decision, or change this effort is finding its way to. One or two lines; every session orients to it before choosing a ticket.>
## Notes
<domain; skills every session should consult; standing preferences for this effort>
## Decisions so far
<!-- the index: one line per closed ticket, enough to judge relevance, then zoom the link for the detail the ticket holds -->
- [<closed ticket title>](link): <one-line gist of the answer>
## Not yet specified
<!-- see "Fog of war": in-scope fog you can't ticket yet; graduates as the frontier advances -->
## Out of scope
<!-- see "Out of scope": work ruled beyond the destination; closed, never graduates -->
Each ticket is a child issue of the map; the tracker's issue id is its identity. Its body is the question, sized to one 100K token agent session:
## Question
<the decision or investigation this ticket resolves>
Each ticket carries a wayfinder:<type> label, one of research, prototype, grilling, task (see Ticket Types). wayfinder: labels are the only labels a map and its tickets carry, never a triage label like ready-for-agent: they are decisions, not implementation work.
A session claims a ticket by assigning it to the dev driving the map, first, before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it. That assignee is the claim: an open, unassigned ticket is unclaimed.
Blocking uses the tracker's native dependency relationship: essential because it renders the frontier visually in the tracker's own UI, so the human sees what's takeable without opening the map. Only a tracker that lacks native blocking falls back to a body convention. A ticket is unblocked when every ticket blocking it is closed; the frontier is the open, unblocked, unclaimed children, the edge of the known.
The answer isn't part of the body; it's recorded on resolution (see Work through the map). Assets created while resolving a ticket are linked from the issue, not pasted in.
Every ticket is either HITL (human in the loop, worked with a human who speaks for themselves) or AFK, driven by the agent alone. A HITL ticket only resolves through that live exchange; the agent never stands in for the human's side of it (a grilling agent that answers its own questions has broken this).
The map is deliberately incomplete: don't chart what you can't yet see. Beyond the live tickets lies the fog of war: the dim view of decisions and investigations you can tell are coming but can't yet pin down, because they hang on questions still open. Resolving a ticket clears the fog ahead of it, graduating whatever's now specifiable into fresh tickets, one at a time, until the way to the destination is clear and no tickets remain.
The map's Not yet specified section is where that dim view is written down: the suspected question, the area to revisit later. It's the undiscovered frontier toward the destination: everything here is in scope, just not sharp enough to ticket. Write as loosely or as fully as the view allows; it doubles as a signpost for collaborators reading where the effort is headed.
Fog or ticket? The test is whether you can state the question precisely now, not whether you can answer it now.
Not yet specified excludes what's already decided (Decisions so far), what's already a live ticket, and what's out of scope (the next section).
Fog only ever gathers toward the destination. The destination fixes the scope, so work beyond it is out of scope: it isn't fog, and it doesn't belong in Not yet specified. It gets its own Out of scope section on the map: work you've consciously ruled out of this effort. Scope, not sharpness, lands it here.
Out-of-scope work never graduates (the frontier stops at the destination), so it returns only if the destination is redrawn, and then as a fresh effort, not a resumption.
Ruling something out of scope is a scoping act, not a step on the route. When a ticket that already exists turns out to sit past the destination (mis-scoped in while charting, or exposed by a resolution), close it (a closed ticket is unambiguously off the frontier) and leave one line in the Out of scope section: the gist plus why it's out of scope, linking the closed ticket. It stays out of Decisions so far, which records the route actually walked; a scope boundary isn't a step on it.
Two modes. Either way, never resolve more than one ticket per session, with the exception of research tickets.
User invokes with a loose idea.
wayfinder:map): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into Not yet specified.#<n> auto-links to an unrelated issue. Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the fog: the Not yet specified section.research ticket you just created, spin up a subagent that calls the Skill tool with "research" to resolve it in parallel, capturing its findings on a throwaway research/<name> branch with a context pointer from the ticket. Push the branch but open no PR: it is never merged.User invokes with a map (URL or number). A ticket is optional: without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.
wayfinder:<type> label names (see Ticket Types). Read the label, not just the body: the body never states the type. Zoom as needed: fetch the full body of any related or closed ticket on demand; call the Skill tool for whichever skills the ## Notes block names. If in doubt, call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling".The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently.
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
아이디어 정리, 구현, 오류 조사에 맞는 관련 스킬과 사용 순서를 안내합니다. 작업의 규모와 단계에 따라 다음 절차를 선택하도록 돕습니다.
한 세션에서 장기 목표를 향해 여러 하위 에이전트의 작업을 조율합니다. 사용자와 대화를 이어가면서 다음 작업에도 도움이 될 환경과 공통 규칙을 개선합니다.
진행 중인 대화를 인계용으로 요약하고 민감한 정보를 제외한 뒤 새 백그라운드 에이전트에 전달합니다. 다음 작업의 초점과 참고 자료를 정리해 현재 작업 위치에서 이어 갑니다.
지정한 커밋이나 브랜치를 기준으로 코드 변경을 검토합니다. 문서화된 개발 규칙 준수와 요구 사항 구현을 별도로 확인하고 두 관점의 지적 사항을 나누어 보고합니다.
호출자가 익혀야 할 사용법은 줄이고 복잡한 처리는 내부에 모으는 모듈 설계를 돕습니다. 공통 용어와 판단 기준으로 사용 편의성과 테스트 용이성을 검토합니다.
재현하기 어려운 오류와 성능 저하를 증상 감지 테스트나 스크립트로 조사합니다. 원인 후보를 검증하고 수정한 뒤 재발 방지 테스트까지 확인합니다.