agentsclimarketplace

Anchor intake

Skill lynxlangya/techne/skills/anchor-intake

Interrogate a written engineering implementation brief before work starts. Use when a user brings a ticket, PRD, design note, or substantive engineering task brief and wants to begin implementation planning; force every fixed rubric element to be accounted, cite present/weak claims against the brief, surface gaps, solution-as-goal traps, contradictions, and questions, then emit an intent-level plan. Do not use for bare one-line requests, non-engineering artifacts, code diff review, bug fixing, or execution itself.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add lynxlangya/techne --skill anchor-intake

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • runs commandsInstructs the agent to run 3 commands, including `python3 skills/anchor-intake/scripts/intake_gate.py init --project <root> --plan <slug> --brief-file <path>` and 2 more.

SKILL.md

5.2 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

anchor-intake

Force the skipped move before execution: interrogate the written brief against a fixed engineering implementation rubric, then plan only after gaps and weak assumptions are visible.

Trigger Check

Use this skill when the user provides a substantial written engineering implementation brief: a ticket, PRD, design note, or task brief with enough text to interrogate before work starts.

Do not use it for a bare one-line request, an already precise command, a marketing brief, research proposal, prose draft, code diff review, bug fix, or implementation execution. For unsupported or too-thin artifacts, self-eject in one sentence and write no .techne/plan/<slug> output. If a captured artifact later proves unsupported, use finalize --unscopable --reason ....

Boundary test: can you point to a user-authored written artifact and ask whether it names the engineering goal, users, measurable success threshold, scope, non-goals, inputs, data sources, dependencies, constraints, and acceptance method? If yes, use anchor-intake. If no, eject or ask for the brief first.

Forced Procedure

  1. Capture the brief. Save the user-authored artifact verbatim. Run: python3 skills/anchor-intake/scripts/intake_gate.py init --project <root> --plan <slug> --brief-file <path>.
  2. Read the brief in full. Do not fill the rubric from memory or from the user's surrounding chat if the value is not in the captured brief.
  3. Account every fixed rubric element. For each of the ten elements, write one disposition in .techne/plan/<slug>/intake.json: present with citation and valueItems, present-weak with citation and a dependent question, or gap with a question or visible modelDefault.
  4. Surface traps and conflicts. Add span-anchored solution-as-goal and contradiction findings whenever the brief implies them. Contradictions need two verified spans.
  5. Ask only dependent questions. Every question must resolve an element or finding and carry a planDelta. Weak/gap questions must reference the weak span/value or the missing element label.
  6. Author intent-level steps. Steps are not execution yet. Each step needs an id, dependsOnAssumptions, dependsOnSteps, verifiableOutcome, and at least one terminal step reachable from a root step.
  7. Check and repair. Run: python3 skills/anchor-intake/scripts/intake_gate.py check --project <root> --plan <slug>. Fix structural failures by doing the missing intake work, not by padding JSON.
  8. Finalize. Run: python3 skills/anchor-intake/scripts/intake_gate.py finalize --project <root> --plan <slug>. Relay the generated intakeReport.json to the user, especially gaps, weak elements, questions, solution-as-goal findings, contradictions, and warnings.

Script Contract

Artifacts are written under the target project:

.techne/plan/<slug>/
  brief.txt          # captured external artifact
  context.json       # computed by init
  intake.json        # authored by the reviewer/planner
  report.json        # computed by check
  plan.json          # computed by finalize
  intakeReport.json  # computed by finalize

Generated .techne/ output belongs to target projects. Do not commit it to this repository.

Minimal intake.json shape:

{
  "schema": "techne.intake/1",
  "elements": {
    "data-sources": {
      "disposition": "gap",
      "questionIds": ["Q1"]
    }
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "S1",
      "kind": "solution-as-goal",
      "citation": {"offset": 16, "quote": "Build a Slack bot"}
    }
  ],
  "questions": [
    {
      "id": "Q1",
      "text": "Which data sources should the implementation read?",
      "resolves": ["data-sources"],
      "planDelta": {"adds": ["Bind implementation to the named source"]}
    }
  ],
  "steps": [
    {
      "id": "s1",
      "title": "Implement only the scoped behavior",
      "dependsOnAssumptions": ["goal-and-why"],
      "dependsOnSteps": [],
      "verifiableOutcome": "The scoped behavior can be verified by the acceptance method",
      "terminal": true
    }
  ]
}

Use reference.md for the full JSON contract, fixed rubric, STOPLIST/RUBRIC-LABEL set, shape rules, warning semantics, and known weak spots.

Stop Conditions

  • Stop before planning if there is no substantial written engineering brief.
  • Stop before finalize if check reports blocking failures.
  • Stop and use --unscopable --reason if the artifact is not an engineering implementation brief or is too garbled/thin to interrogate honestly.
  • Stop before executing the work. anchor-intake ends at a surfaced report and intent-level plan; implementation belongs to the next workflow step.

What ships with it: 5 files

71.8 KB alongside SKILL.md, 1 of them executable

scripts/

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most plan spec skills give in ~1.2k tokens

Counted across 1,360 of the 2,617 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

  • Ask one question at a timein 73 of 1360
  • Write the spec using the templatein 22 of 1360
  • Ask clarifying questions if neededin 19 of 1360, across 18 files
  • Wait for user confirmation before proceedingin 19 of 1360
  • Save plans to the plans directoryin 17 of 1360, across 13 files
  • Check for product marketing context firstin 16 of 1360, across 5 files
  • Read the plan file completelyin 16 of 1360
  • Order tasks by dependencyin 16 of 1360
  • Gather context from the conversationin 15 of 1360, across 9 files
  • Explore the codebase instead of askingin 15 of 1360, across 13 files
  • Wait for explicit user approvalin 14 of 1360, across 13 files
  • Quiz the user on the breakdownin 13 of 1360, across 7 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • Capture the brief verbatim before starting work
  • Read the brief in full
  • Account every fixed rubric element
  • Surface traps and conflicts
  • Ask only dependent questions
  • Author intent-level steps

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.