본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개한국어 소개

wayfinder

한 번의 대화로 다루기 어려운 큰 기획이나 변경을 결정할 질문과 의존 관계로 정리합니다. 이슈 관리 도구에 판단 근거를 남기고 실행까지의 경로를 명확히 합니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

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.

AI 평가80점/ 100설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • 여러 대화에 걸친 대규모 계획 수립
  • 미결정 사항과 의존 관계 정리
  • 협업 중 판단 과정 공유
  • 구현 전에 결정할 사항 확인

한국어 소개

할 수 있는 일

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.

이럴 때 유용합니다

대규모 변경이나 강좌 제작처럼 진행 경로가 보이지 않는 기획에 적합합니다. 여러 대화에 걸쳐 판단 과정을 공유하고, 조사와 시제품 제작, 사용자와의 논의로 다음 질문을 구체화합니다.

사용 예시

  • “이 큰 기획의 도달 목표와 결정할 질문을 정리해 주세요.”
  • “이 지도에서 다음에 착수할 수 있는 판단 하나를 진행해 주세요.”

주의 사항

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.

객관 평가

AI가 SKILL.md의 내용만을 근거로 4가지 관점에서 판정했습니다. 스타 수나 인기도는 판정에 넣지 않았습니다.

지시의 명확성언제 쓰고 무엇을 하는지 알 수 있는가
A양호한 번의 대화에 담기 어려운 일을 판단 티켓으로 계획하는 목적을 명시합니다.
절차의 구체성절차·입출력·예시가 구체적으로 적혀 있는가
A양호지도와 질문 양식, 라벨, 담당자 배정 및 의존 관계 처리 방식을 규정합니다.
안전성전송·삭제·명령 실행 등을 명시하고 있는가
B일부 부족조사에서 외부 자료를 읽고 작업에서 권한 부여나 데이터 이동을 다루지만 확인 조건은 없습니다.
도입의 용이성필요한 도구나 API 키가 적고 적혀 있는가
B일부 부족로컬 Markdown 대안은 있지만 참조하는 추가 스킬의 설치 절차는 없습니다.

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.

평가가 다르다고 생각되면 재검토를 요청하기

어느 항목이 왜 다르다고 생각하는지 적어 주세요. 로그인은 필요 없습니다. SKILL.md와 대조해 평가를 다시 만들고 이곳에 반영합니다.

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md12.1 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml144 B

SKILL.md(원문)

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.

Plan, don't do

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.

Refer by name

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

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 map body

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 -->

Tickets

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.

Ticket Types

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).

  • Research (AFK): Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases to surface a fact a decision waits on. Resolved by a subagent that calls the Skill tool with "research". Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
  • Prototype (HITL): Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to (an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code) by calling the Skill tool with "prototype". Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
  • Grilling (HITL): Conversation. The default case. Always call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling".
  • Task (HITL or AFK): Manual work that must happen before a decision can be made: nothing to decide, prototype, or research, but the discussion is blocked until it's done. Signing up for a service so its API can be judged, provisioning access, moving data so its shape can be seen. This is the one type that does rather than decides, and it earns its place by unblocking a decision, not by delivering the destination. The agent drives it alone where it can (AFK); otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist (HITL). Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.

Fog of war

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.

  • Ticket when the question is already sharp, even if it's blocked and you can't act on it yet.
  • Not yet specified when you can't yet phrase it that sharply. Don't pre-slice the fog into ticket-sized pieces: it's coarser than a ticket, and one patch may graduate into several tickets, or none, once the frontier reaches it.

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).

Out of scope

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.

Invocation

Two modes. Either way, never resolve more than one ticket per session, with the exception of research tickets.

Chart the map

User invokes with a loose idea.

  1. Name the destination. Call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling", to pin down what this map is finding its way to: the spec, decision, or change. The destination fixes the scope, so it's settled first.
  2. Map the frontier. Grill again, breadth-first this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now. If this surfaces no fog (the way to the destination is already clear, the whole journey small enough for one session), you don't need a map. Stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed.
  3. Create the map (label wayfinder:map): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into Not yet specified.
  4. Create the tickets you can specify now as child issues of the map, then wire blocking edges in a second pass (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Write cross-references in that pass too, with real ids: a placeholder #<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.
  5. Fire the research subagents. For each 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.
  6. Stop: charting is one session's work; it hand-resolves nothing.

Work through the map

User invokes with a map (URL or number). A ticket is optional: without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.

  1. Load the map: the low-res view, not every ticket body.
  2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise take the first frontier ticket in order. Claim it: assign it to yourself before any work.
  3. Resolve it as the type its 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".
  4. Record the resolution: post the answer as a resolution comment, close the issue, and append a context pointer to the map's Decisions-so-far.
  5. Add newly-surfaced tickets (create-then-wire); graduate any fog the answer has made specifiable, clearing each graduated patch from Not yet specified so it lives only as its new ticket. If the answer reveals that a ticket (this one or another) sits beyond the destination, rule it out of scope rather than resolving it on the route. If the decision invalidates other parts of the map, update or delete those tickets.

The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

ask-matt

무료요약 있음AI 평가 90점

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
mattpocock/skills29.6만2026년 10월 13일 업데이트

chief-of-staff

무료요약 있음AI 평가 60점

한 세션에서 장기 목표를 향해 여러 하위 에이전트의 작업을 조율합니다. 사용자와 대화를 이어가면서 다음 작업에도 도움이 될 환경과 공통 규칙을 개선합니다.

  • 장기 목표를 위한 작업 담당을 조율할 때
  • 백그라운드 작업 중에도 대화를 이어갈 때
  • 공통 규칙과 작업 환경을 개선할 때
mattpocock/skills29.6만2026년 10월 13일 업데이트

claude-handoff

무료요약 있음AI 평가 90점

진행 중인 대화를 인계용으로 요약하고 민감한 정보를 제외한 뒤 새 백그라운드 에이전트에 전달합니다. 다음 작업의 초점과 참고 자료를 정리해 현재 작업 위치에서 이어 갑니다.

  • 새 에이전트에 후속 작업 인계
  • 다음 세션의 작업 범위를 좁혀 인계
  • 다음 세션에 필요한 참고 자료 정리
mattpocock/skills29.6만2026년 10월 13일 업데이트

code-review

무료요약 있음AI 평가 90점

지정한 커밋이나 브랜치를 기준으로 코드 변경을 검토합니다. 문서화된 개발 규칙 준수와 요구 사항 구현을 별도로 확인하고 두 관점의 지적 사항을 나누어 보고합니다.

  • 브랜치나 PR의 변경 검토
  • 지정 커밋이나 태그 이후 변경 확인
  • 문서화된 개발 규칙과 대조
mattpocock/skills29.6만2026년 10월 13일 업데이트

codebase-design

무료요약 있음AI 평가 90점

호출자가 익혀야 할 사용법은 줄이고 복잡한 처리는 내부에 모으는 모듈 설계를 돕습니다. 공통 용어와 판단 기준으로 사용 편의성과 테스트 용이성을 검토합니다.

  • 모듈 호출 방법 간소화
  • 흩어진 복잡한 처리 통합
  • 구현을 교체할 위치 검토
mattpocock/skills29.6만2026년 10월 13일 업데이트

diagnosing-bugs

무료요약 있음AI 평가 80점

재현하기 어려운 오류와 성능 저하를 증상 감지 테스트나 스크립트로 조사합니다. 원인 후보를 검증하고 수정한 뒤 재발 방지 테스트까지 확인합니다.

  • 재현하기 어려운 오류 조사
  • 처리 속도가 느려진 원인 조사
  • 간헐적 오류를 반복해서 검증
mattpocock/skills29.6만2026년 10월 13일 업데이트

mattpocock의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고