design-synthesis

Original：🇺🇸 English
Translated

Synthesizes research findings into design decisions via codebase investigation. Use when (1) translating research into implementation approaches, (2) selecting between design alternatives, (3) executing after /research or deep-research, or (4) preparing input for /plan phase.

12installs
Sourceneversight/skills_feed
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add neversight/skills_feed design-synthesis

Tags

Translated version includes tags in frontmatter
design-synthesisagent-orchestrationcodebase-investigationdesign-decisionsproject-planning

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

[H1][DESIGN-SYNTHESIS]

Dictum: Design decisions require grounded context before implementation.
<br>
Synthesize research findings into design decisions via light codebase investigation.
Workflow:
  1. §INGEST — Load research artifact, parse original request
  2. §SCAN — Light codebase investigation via 
    parallel-dispatch
    (3-4 agents)
  3. §EXPLORE — Generate 2-3 approaches with trade-offs
  4. §SELECT — Commit to best approach with rationale
  5. §OUTPUT — Structured design document
Dependencies:
  • parallel-dispatch
    — Agent orchestration for codebase scan
  • Research artifact — External findings from 
    deep-research
Input:
  • Research
    : Path to research artifact (
    research_{slug}.md
    )
  • Request
    : Original user request/intent

[1][INGEST]

Dictum: Grounded context prevents speculative design.
<br>
Load and parse inputs:
[INDEX]SourceExtract
[1]Research fileFindings, confidence levels, key sources
[2]RequestIntent, scope boundaries, success criteria
Parse research structure:
  • ## [1][FINDINGS]
    → Domain knowledge by category
  • ## [2][CONFIDENCE]
    → High/Medium/Low ratings
  • ## [3][SOURCES]
    → Attribution for decisions
[IMPORTANT]:
  • [ALWAYS] Extract high-confidence findings as primary input.
  • [ALWAYS] Note low-confidence areas as design risks.
  • [NEVER] Proceed without understanding request intent.

[2][SCAN]

Dictum: Pattern awareness prevents reinvention.
<br>
Dispatch 3-4 agents via 
parallel-dispatch
for codebase context.
Agent Assignment:
[INDEX][AGENT][SCOPE][RETURNS]
[1]PatternsSimilar implementations in codebaseConventions, reusable patterns, prior art
[2]ConstraintsProject rules, architecture limitsHard boundaries, style requirements
[3]InterfacesEntry/exit points for feature areaTouch points, consumers, integration surface
Agent Prompt Template:
Scope: [Specific investigation area]
Objective: Surface [patterns|constraints|interfaces] relevant to: [request summary]
Output: Bullet list of findings with file paths
Context: Research indicates: [key findings summary]
Exclusions: Do NOT analyze implementation details or specific file contents
[CRITICAL]:
  • [ALWAYS] Dispatch ALL agents in ONE message block.
  • [ALWAYS] Scope to patterns/constraints/interfaces—NOT implementation.
  • [NEVER] Deep-dive into file contents—that's plan's job.

[3][EXPLORE]

Dictum: Comparison reveals optimal trade-offs.
<br>
Generate 2-3 distinct approaches from research + scan findings.
Per Approach:
[INDEX]AspectContent
[1]StrategyHigh-level implementation direction
[2]AlignmentHow it leverages research findings
[3]PatternsWhich codebase conventions it follows
[4]Trade-offsPros and cons
Approach Generation Criteria:
  • Approach A: Most aligned with existing patterns (conservative)
  • Approach B: Best leverage of research findings (optimal)
  • Approach C: Simplest implementation path (minimal) — optional
[IMPORTANT]:
  • [ALWAYS] Ground approaches in scan findings—no speculation.
  • [ALWAYS] Include trade-off analysis per approach.
  • [ALWAYS] Apply YAGNI—cut unnecessary scope from all approaches.
  • [NEVER] Generate approaches without codebase evidence.

[4][SELECT]

Dictum: Committed direction enables focused planning.
<br>
Select best approach via weighted criteria:
[INDEX]CriterionWeightEvaluation
[1]Pattern alignmentHighMatches existing codebase conventions
[2]Research supportHighBacked by high-confidence findings
[3]SimplicityMediumMinimal moving parts
[4]Risk profileMediumLow-confidence areas minimized
Selection Output:
  • Selected approach name
  • Primary rationale (1-2 sentences)
  • Key trade-off accepted
[CRITICAL]:
  • [ALWAYS] Commit to ONE approach—no hedging.
  • [ALWAYS] Document trade-off accepted.
  • [NEVER] Defer selection to downstream phases.

[5][OUTPUT]

Dictum: Downstream consumers require predictable structure.
<br>
Produce 
brainstorm.md
with structure:
markdown
# [H1][DESIGN]: [Title]
>**Dictum:** *[Build target—refined from request]*

<br>

**Research Summary:** [Key findings relevant to design]

---
## [1][APPROACHES]

### [1.1][APPROACH_A]: [Name]

| [INDEX] | [ASPECT]  | [DETAIL]                        |
| :-----: | --------- | ------------------------------- |
|   [1]   | Strategy  | [High-level direction]          |
|   [2]   | Alignment | [Research findings leveraged]   |
|   [3]   | Patterns  | [Codebase conventions followed] |
|   [4]   | Pros      | [Benefits]                      |
|   [5]   | Cons      | [Drawbacks]                     |

---
### [1.2][APPROACH_B]: [Name]

| [INDEX] | [ASPECT]  | [DETAIL]                        |
| :-----: | --------- | ------------------------------- |
|   [1]   | Strategy  | [High-level direction]          |
|   [2]   | Alignment | [Research findings leveraged]   |
|   [3]   | Patterns  | [Codebase conventions followed] |
|   [4]   | Pros      | [Benefits]                      |
|   [5]   | Cons      | [Drawbacks]                     |

---
## [2][SELECTED_APPROACH]

| [INDEX] | [KEY]              | [VALUE]                |
| :-----: | ------------------ | ---------------------- |
|   [1]   | Choice             | [Approach name]        |
|   [2]   | Rationale          | [Why this approach]    |
|   [3]   | Trade-off Accepted | [What we're giving up] |

---
## [3][DESIGN_CONSTRAINTS]

| [INDEX] | [CONSTRAINT]    | [SOURCE]        |
| :-----: | --------------- | --------------- |
|   [1]   | [Hard boundary] | [Codebase scan] |
|   [2]   | ...             | ...             |

---
## [4][KEY_DECISIONS]

| [INDEX] | [DECISION]      | [CHOICE]          | [RATIONALE] |
| :-----: | --------------- | ----------------- | ----------- |
|   [1]   | [Design choice] | [Selected option] | [Why]       |
|   [2]   | [Design choice] | [Selected option] | [Why]       |
[CRITICAL]:
  • [ALWAYS] Include all sections—downstream depends on structure.
  • [ALWAYS] Table format for approaches and decisions.
  • [NEVER] Prose paragraphs—tables and lists only.

[6][VALIDATION]

Dictum: Incomplete synthesis cascades errors downstream.
<br>
[VERIFY]:
  • Ingest: Research parsed, request intent extracted
  • Scan: 3-4 agents dispatched in ONE message
  • Explore: 2-3 approaches with trade-offs generated
  • Select: ONE approach committed with rationale
  • Output: All sections present, table format used
  • YAGNI: Unnecessary scope cut from all approaches