Loading...
Loading...
Found 11 Skills
Phase 3 of the feature workflow – Complete the acceptance closed loop. Two tasks: First, check layer by layer against {slug}-design.md to verify if the implementation deviates from the plan; if deviations are found, fix them immediately instead of just "noting them down" in the report. Second, integrate this feature into the project's overall architecture documentation. Finally, produce a {slug}-acceptance.md as the closed-loop proof for the entire workflow. Predecessor dependency easysdd-feature-implement must be completed. Trigger scenarios: User says "The feature is done, let's accept it", "Do the final check", "Prepare for merge", "Generate the acceptance report".
Write or update external guide documents for the project —— dev-guide (for contributors/integrators/downstream developers) and user-guide (for end users). The output is stored in the project's docs/ directory, maintained alongside the code, and searchable by search tools. Difference from libdoc: guidedoc is task-oriented ("How to do Y with X"), while libdoc is reference-oriented ("What each part of X looks like"). Trigger scenarios: When the user says "write documentation", "developer guide", "user guide", or proactively push at the end of feature-acceptance.
Document the pitfalls encountered or good practices discovered during this work into searchable learning documents, which can be accessed by both AI and humans when similar tasks arise in the future. Two tracks: The pitfall track records experiences where "things should have worked but didn't" — including bugs, configuration traps, environment issues, and integration failures; The knowledge track records findings that "should be the default approach going forward" — including best practices, workflow improvements, and reusable patterns. Trigger scenarios: Proactively prompt at the end of feature-acceptance or issue-fix workflows, or when the user mentions phrases like "document knowledge", "learning", "document learnings", or "record this experience". Spec documents record what was done, while learning documents record what pitfalls were encountered / what was learned — they complement each other and are not interchangeable.
One-stop skill for the project architecture center — draft new architecture documents, refresh existing ones, or conduct an architecture health check. Automatically determine the mode based on user input: `new` (draft)/ `update` (refresh to latest code status)/ `check` (review without modification, generate issue list). The `check` mode has three sub-objectives: consistency within a single feature design, alignment between design and code, and consistency among multiple documents under `codestable/architecture/`. Single-target rule — only modify one document or check one target at a time. Trigger scenarios: User says "fill in an architecture doc", "draft an architecture document", "refresh the architecture directory", "write down this module structure", "conduct an architecture check", "is the design internally consistent?", "does the plan match the code?", "are there conflicts among several documents in the architecture folder?", or when an architecture action is required before proceeding during the feature-design / feature-acceptance / implement phases.
Generate reference documentation entry by entry for the public surface of a library (components, functions, commands, etc.), with manifest tracking, supporting both single-entry and batch modes. Fundamental difference from guidedoc: guidedoc teaches you how to use something, while libdoc tells you what each part looks like; guidedoc's information sources are solution docs + user knowledge, while libdoc's information source is the source code itself. Trigger scenarios: When the user says "write API documentation", "component documentation", "libdoc", "write documentation for each component", or when new public library interfaces are discovered after feature-acceptance.
Draft or update architecture documents under `easysdd/architecture/` — describe what a subsystem/module looks like currently, how it is divided, and how external interfaces operate, to provide pre-positioning input for subsequent feature-design. Information sources include code + user materials (oral accounts, scattered documents, compound deposits, existing decisions), and the output can be reverse-validated by anchoring to specific `file:line`. Two modes: new (draft a new architecture document from scratch), update (refresh an existing document based on the latest code status and new user materials). Single-target rule — only modify one document at a time. Trigger scenarios: user says "fill in an architecture doc", "draft an architecture document", "update the architecture directory", "write down the structure of this module", or when it is found that "something that should be in the architecture is missing" during the feature-design / feature-acceptance phase.
Generate reference documentation entry by entry for the public surface of libraries (components, functions, commands, etc.), with manifest tracking, supporting both single-entry and batch modes. Fundamental differences from guidedoc: guidedoc teaches you how to use things, while libdoc tells you what each part looks like; guidedoc's information sources are solution docs + user knowledge, while libdoc's information source is the source code itself. Trigger scenarios: When users say "write API documentation", "component documentation", "libdoc", "write documentation for each component", or when new public library interfaces are found after feature-acceptance.
Write or update external guide documents for the project —— dev-guide (for contributors / integrators / downstream developers) and user-guide (for end users). The output is stored in the project's docs/ directory, maintained alongside the code, and searchable by search tools. Difference from libdoc: guidedoc is task-oriented ("How to do Y with X"), while libdoc is reference-oriented ("What each part of X looks like"). Trigger scenarios: When the user says "write documentation", "developer guide", "user guide", or proactively push when feature-acceptance is completed.
Document the pitfalls encountered or good practices discovered during this work into searchable learning documents, so that both AI and humans can look them up when similar tasks arise in the future. Two tracks: The pitfall track records experiences where "things should have worked but didn't" — bugs, configuration traps, environment issues, integration failures; The knowledge track records findings that "should be the default approach going forward" — best practices, workflow improvements, reusable patterns. Trigger scenarios: Proactively prompt for input when wrapping up feature-acceptance or issue-fix, or when the user says phrases like "document knowledge", "learning", "document learnings", "record this experience". Spec documents record what was done and how it was done, while learning documents record what pitfalls were encountered / what was learned — the two complement each other and are not interchangeable.
One-stop skill for the project architecture center — draft new architecture documents, refresh existing architecture documents, or conduct an architecture health check. Automatically determine the mode based on user input: `new` (draft)/ `update` (refresh to the latest code status)/ `check` (view only, generate issue list). The `check` mode has three sub-goals: consistency within a single feature design, alignment between design and code, and consistency among multiple documents under `easysdd/architecture/`. Single-target rule — only modify one document or check one target at a time. Trigger scenarios: User says "fill in an architecture doc", "draft an architecture document", "refresh the architecture directory", "write down the structure of this module", "conduct an architecture check", "is the design internally consistent?", "does the plan match the code?", "are there conflicts among several documents in the architecture folder?", or when it is found in the feature-design / feature-acceptance / implement phase that an architecture action needs to be performed first before proceeding.
Phase 3 of the feature workflow – Complete the acceptance closed-loop. Four tasks: 1. Check layer by layer against {slug}-design.md to verify if the implementation deviates from the plan; fix any deviations on the spot instead of just "noting them" in the report. 2. Incorporate this feature into the project's overall architecture documentation. 3. If this feature changes the user story or boundaries of the corresponding requirement, update the requirement doc accordingly. 4. If this feature originated from a roadmap item, change the status of the corresponding entry in roadmap items.yaml to done and sync it with the main document. Finally, produce a {slug}-acceptance.md as the closed-loop proof for the entire workflow. Prerequisite: cs-feat-impl is completed. Trigger scenarios: User says "The feature is done, let's accept it", "Do the final check", "Prepare for merge", "Generate the acceptance report".