リポジトリ内のソースコードを調べ、各ディレクトリの役割や公開インターフェース、制約をまとめたREADME.mdを階層的に作成・更新するスキルです。
- リポジトリのREADMEを階層ごとに整備したいとき
- 各パッケージの公開インターフェースを記録したいとき
- 既存のREADMEをコードに合わせて更新したいとき
要件や解決方針をまとめたブリーフやメモをもとに、概要から実装計画までを段階的に設計書へまとめ、各章を確認しながら仕上げるスキルです。
Drafts a design document section-by-section using the concepts brief from egm-brainstorm (or user notes). This is the second step in the Elephant-Goldfish (EGM) feature flow. Use when you are ready to write a design doc after aligning on requirements + solution.
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見るegm-brainstorm でまとめたブリーフや利用者のメモをもとに、設計書を章ごとに作成します。問題と概要、目標と対象外事項から始め、技術計画、検討した代替案、詳細な実装計画へ進みます。実装計画では変更・追加・削除するファイルを列挙し、それぞれの変更内容と理由を記します。各章は design_draft.md に保存し、利用者の確認を受けてから次へ進む流れです。設計の選択肢が複数ある場合は、仕組みやトレードオフを示して判断を求めます。最終段階ではブリーフとの食い違いを確認し、指定先に設計書を保存します。
要件や解決方針が固まった後、実装に進む前に設計内容を整理したいときに向いています。設計の理由や代替案を残したい場合、また実装時に判断が必要な点を減らすため、変更対象のファイルを具体化したい場合にも使えます。
ブリーフやメモがない場合は、機能の問題、目標、技術的な背景を利用者に確認します。大きな設計判断は選択肢を提示し、利用者の決定を求めます。
この紹介文は、公開されている SKILL.md をもとに AI(OpenAI Codex)が作成しました。正確な仕様は下の原文を確認してください。
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
When running in Codex or ChatGPT Work, first read Codex integration.
In Claude Code or Cowork, read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/docs/claude.md first.
This skill guides the user through drafting a technical design document based on the aligned problem and requirements from the brainstorm phase.
resources/execution_instructions.md.design_draft.md or
./design_draft.md) using your file-writing tool and tell the user in chat
the file path and ask for review. This applies to the Discussion Summary,
Design Drafts, and all review reports.ask_question, if your harness has one, or plain chat) MUST contain
strictly one question (len(questions) == 1), be the sole tool call in the
turn, and provide clear, action-oriented options without (Recommended)
prefixes.Context File (Optional): File path to a predecessor document (e.g.,
docs/designs/<feature_name>.md, concepts_brief.md, or
discussion_summary.md). If omitted, the skill defaults to consuming
predecessor context (e.g., concepts_brief.md or discussion_summary.md).Follow these steps sequentially. Execute steps in order but allow the user to revisit old phases in case they forgot something. Do not skip ahead without explicit consensus from the user to confirm we can proceed between steps. Write the document iteratively as the conversation progresses between sections.
After writing or updating each section in design_draft.md using your
file-writing tool, you must present the approval gate in the same turn following
this strict generation order:
design_draft.md (e.g., [design draft](/absolute/project/design_draft.md) in Codex).ask_question
with len(questions) == 1 and is_multi_select: false if your harness has
one, or plain chat):[!CAUTION] Negative Constraint (No Empty Chat Bubbles): NEVER emit a structured question tool call with empty response text. Always generate the visible chat explanation and file link before invoking the question gate.
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Drafted [Section Name] in design_draft.md. Please review. How would you like to proceed?",
"options": [
"Approve [Section Name] and proceed to next section",
"Request revisions to [Section Name] (via inline comments or write-in)"
],
"is_multi_select": false
}
]
}
Approve [Section Name] and proceed to next section):
design_draft.md are also present in the turn
context, apply those inline updates to design_draft.md first before
advancing to the next section.Request revisions to [Section Name] (via inline comments or write-in)) or Modal Skip with Inline Comments:
design_draft.md
(honoring positive callouts to retain highlighted sections and negative
callouts to revise or remove content). Apply all revisions to
design_draft.md using your file-writing tool, notify the user, and
re-present the approval gate."Please specify the adjustments or additions needed for [Section Name] (either via inline comments on design_draft.md or here in chat) so I can revise the draft." and yield active execution
to wait for user clarification in chat.Context File is specified, read and parse it directly.concepts_brief.md): Check for
concepts_brief.md in ./concepts_brief.md, the conversation artifact
directory, or scratch/concepts_brief.md. If found, ingest and parse
the brief.discussion_summary.md): If
concepts_brief.md is not found, check for discussion_summary.md in
./discussion_summary.md, the conversation artifact directory, or
scratch/discussion_summary.md. If found, ingest and parse the summary.
Do NOT prompt the user to start /egm-brainstorm or warn of
deprecation./egm-brainstorm.references/design_doc.md).design_draft.md in the working directory (or your harness's artifact
directory, if it has one) using your file-writing tool.design_draft.md, and present the Section
Approval Gate for Overview & Goals.design_draft.md to
append/insert the "Technical Plan" section using your file-writing tool.design_draft.md, and present the Section Approval Gate for
Technical Plan.Alternatives Weighed section of the ingested context. Do not
rely on memory: drafting often runs in a new session. If the section is
absent, ask the user which alternatives were rejected and why.design_draft.md to
append/insert the "Alternatives Considered" section using your file-writing
tool.design_draft.md, and present the Section Approval Gate for
Alternatives Considered.Draft a detailed implementation plan that focuses on how to implement the feature. This plan must be detailed. You should ask questions and add enough detail so that with the plan alone you can implement it without having to make any impactful decisions. Follow these guidelines:
./sub/README.md or ../sibling/README.md) for
intra-package and sibling documentation links.design_draft.md to
append/insert this "Detailed Implementation" section using your file-writing
tool.design_draft.md, and present
the Section Approval Gate for Detailed Implementation.When you are asked to write or save the design document, follow these rules strictly:
Reconcile against the Predecessor Context: Do not grade the draft
against the Zoom Out standard here. The session that wrote the draft agrees
with it; /egm-review Stage 5 runs that check from a fresh context.
Instead, re-read the context ingested at Step 1 and compare it with the
draft. No Goldfish can do this check, because no Goldfish reads the brief.
List contradictions first, one line each, quoting the brief and the draft. Ask the user to decide each one. Do not change the draft to match the brief on your own: the draft can be right, because drafting reads code that the brainstorm did not. If nothing diverges, say so in one line. If Step 1 found no predecessor file, skip this step.
If a contradiction is open, stop and wait for the user. Apply each
decision to design_draft.md before Step 6.2.
Target Directory: If the user specified a target directory or file, use
it. Otherwise, probe the workspace for existing design directories (from
Context File directory, docs/designs/, or <project>/docs/designs/),
bind [DiscoveredPath] (defaulting to docs/designs/), and present a
single-select gate (using a structured question tool such as ask_question
with len(questions) == 1 and is_multi_select: false if your harness has
one, or plain chat):
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Where should the design be saved?",
"options": [
"Save to detected directory: [DiscoveredPath]",
"Specify custom target directory"
],
"is_multi_select": false
}
]
}
<DESIGN_DIR> to [DiscoveredPath].<DESIGN_DIR> to supplied path. If empty write-in, prompt in chat:
"Please specify the custom target directory path where you would like to save the design document." and yield active execution.Update Sitemap: If <DESIGN_DIR>/SITEMAP.md exists, register the new
design in it (Link, Date, Author, Components, Description).
Write doc: Once finalized, write the contents of design_draft.md to
the designated destination file at <DESIGN_DIR>/<FEATURE>.md using your
file-writing tool. Follow the template for final
structure if any adjustments are needed.
Clean Formatting: Ensure clean standard Markdown formatting, valid table syntax, and proper code block fences.
Handoff: Provide a clickable link to the finalized design and recommend that the user review the document with:
`egm-review` <DESIGN_PATH>
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。
リポジトリ内のソースコードを調べ、各ディレクトリの役割や公開インターフェース、制約をまとめたREADME.mdを階層的に作成・更新するスキルです。
曖昧なアイデアを質問と多角的な検討で仮説やRFC要約に整理し、必要に応じて詳細設計へ引き継ぐスキルです。
設計書やREADMEと現在のコードを照合し、仕様にない実装や未実装の機能、設計との差異を見つけて、文書ごとの報告書に整理します。
複数のレビュー担当から集めた文書の指摘を根拠に沿って分類し、修正案の提示や修正適用、利用者との確認を進めるスキルです。
設計文書を全体像・理解しやすさ・設計上の課題・実装準備の観点から段階的にレビューし、指摘をレポートにまとめるスキルです。
複数の専門エージェントで設計書や仕様書を繰り返しレビューし、指摘の整理、修正案の確認、承認された修正の反映まで進めるスキルです。