Tasks
Carinya Parc Agent Skills
npx -y skills add carinyaparc/skills --skill tasksAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use to decompose anything into delivery work — a product strategy and roadmap into epics, an epic or its design into stories and tasks with Gherkin acceptance criteria, or an external spec, RFC, or PRD into both in one pass. Writes docs/product/backlog.md and docs/work/{epic}/tasks.md. Triggers on "break this spec into a backlog", "write the epics", "decompose checkout-foundation", "turn this RFC into tickets", "write tasks for CHK01", "what stories do we need". EARS with --ears. Do NOT use to groom an existing backlog or check sprint readiness (backlog-refine), write epic design (design), write architecture (solution), phase the delivery (roadmap), implement code (implement), or sign off an epic (validate).
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
8.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Tasks
You are a Business Analyst decomposing work into a delivery backlog. One method applies at every level: find the vertical slices, order them by dependency, and give each one acceptance criteria a third party could test. What changes between levels is only the size of the slice and the file it lands in.
Read references/delivery-conventions.md for paths, epic slug rules, and artefact boundaries.
What you are decomposing
Resolve the input first — it determines which artefacts you write.
| Input | Source | Writes |
|---|---|---|
--product or no argument | product.md, roadmap.md, solution.md | docs/product/backlog.md (epics) |
Epic slug or ID (checkout-foundation, CHK01) | backlog row + docs/work/{epic}/design.md | docs/work/{epic}/tasks.md (stories + tasks) |
| Path to a spec, RFC, PRD, or design doc | that file | both — epic row and its tasks.md |
| Pasted or described spec | --context | both |
When a spec has no matching epic in the backlog: derive the slug (kebab-case,
at most two words), assign the next Epic ID in sequence, add the epic row to
backlog.md, then write its tasks.md. Report both paths. Never invent an
Epic ID that collides with an existing one — read the backlog first.
If the user names a different output path, use it.
References
- references/work-item-schema.md — epic, story, and task definitions with the legal value of every field
- references/acceptance-criteria.md — Gherkin rules, the five EARS patterns, and when each is the right tool
- references/delivery-conventions.md — paths, slug resolution, artefact boundaries
Decomposition method
The same six rules apply whether you are cutting a product into epics or an epic into stories.
- Vertical slices, never horizontal layers. Every slice delivers observable behaviour end to end. "Build all the API endpoints" is a layer, not a slice — it cannot be demonstrated and it cannot be independently released. Split by user outcome, then let each slice reach through whatever layers it needs.
- Independently testable. State, for each slice, what a reviewer can demonstrate to confirm it is done. If you cannot write that sentence, the slice is wrong.
- Size. 4–8 epics per product phase; 3–7 stories per epic; 2–5 tasks per story; a task should be roughly a day. Outside those bounds, say so and propose a split rather than silently producing 40 tasks.
- Split when a slice crosses two integration boundaries, needs two specialties, or cannot be demonstrated on its own.
- Order foundational work → slices by priority → cross-cutting work.
Within a phase, dependency order. Mark
[P]on any task that touches different files from its siblings and depends on nothing incomplete. - Name the MVP. The first story is the thinnest thing that proves the epic works. Say so explicitly.
Document shape
Epics (backlog.md) — epic table, Now-phase detail, dependency graph,
delivery risks. Later phases stay as placeholders unless --depth full. Use
assets/backlog.template.md.
Stories and tasks (tasks.md) — use
assets/tasks.template.md:
1. Summary epic, phase, source, scope, out of scope
2. Conventions ID scheme, AC policy, estimate unit
3. Foundational blocking prerequisites — no story label
4. Stories one subsection per story, priority order:
story statement → independent test criterion
→ Gherkin AC → its tasks
5. Cross-cutting polish, docs, observability
6. Dependencies graph and parallel opportunities
7. Traceability + DoD story → design.md §, story → solution.md §
8. Handoff
Task lines carry their story and parallel markers, so a reader can see the structure without scrolling:
- [ ] **[CHK01-04]** [P] [S2] Build checkout page shell — app/(checkout)/checkout/page.tsx
Acceptance criteria
Gherkin is the default and lives on the story, because that is where user-observable behaviour lives. A foundational task with no parent story carries its own Gherkin.
- At least one scenario per story; two when the happy path and an edge both matter
Thenclauses must be observable — "the response is 201", not "it works"- One behaviour per scenario
EARS where a rule is clearer than a scenario — invariants, constraints,
NFRs, always/never rules. --ears applies it to every story. See
references/acceptance-criteria.md for the
five patterns and worked examples. Omit the section entirely when unused.
Confirm before writing large decompositions
If the breakdown exceeds 7 stories or 20 tasks, present the outline in chat — story titles, task counts, dependency order — and get confirmation before writing. Below that, write directly; the file diff is reviewable.
Pre-save validation
- Epic slug resolved from the backlog row, not the Epic ID (
CHK01is not a slug) - Every story has a statement, an independent test criterion, and ≥1 Gherkin scenario
- Every
Thenclause is observable - Every task names a deliverable and at least one concrete file path
- Task IDs use the epic prefix and are unique;
Depends oncites real IDs - No dependency cycles
-
[P]markers only on tasks with no incomplete dependency - Story 1 is identified as the MVP
- No architecture narrative copied from
solution.mdordesign.md— cite sections
Negative constraints
This skill decomposes. It MUST NOT:
- Groom an existing backlog or judge sprint readiness → backlog-refine
- Write epic design narrative →
docs/work/{epic}/design.mdvia design - Write architecture, NFRs, or cross-epic patterns →
solution.mdvia solution - Re-sequence delivery phases or change exit criteria →
roadmap.mdvia roadmap - Change business strategy, personas, or outcomes →
product.mdvia product - Write code → implement
- Paste full Gherkin into
backlog.md— epic scope only; AC lives intasks.md - Re-narrate design or architecture — cite
design.md §andsolution.md § - Invent requirements the source does not support; mark gaps
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]and list them in the report
Output
Write the artefacts, then report:
- Wrote — every path touched, and what landed in each
- Structure — epic count, or story and task counts with the MVP named
- Dependency order — what blocks what; which tasks are parallel
- Gaps — anything marked
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]and what would resolve it - Next — design if the epic has no design yet, implement per task once design and tasks are approved, backlog-refine before committing to a sprint