Rite define
Skill ViktorsBaikers/DevRites/pack/generated/claude/skills/rite-define
Define the first build plan from an approved spec: architecture, task slices, traceability, and state. Use when turning approved intent into its initial plan.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add ViktorsBaikers/DevRites --skill rite-defineAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 1 stars1 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.
SKILL.md
12.5 KB, ~3.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
/rite-define: plan from the spec
Turn the active feature's spec.md into a buildable workspace with architecture, an
implementation approach, dependency-ordered vertical slices, traceability, and a
state cursor. The spec defines what and why; this phase defines how. Keep spec,
architecture, plan, tasks, and traceability in their phase-owned files. Do not write
code here.
Rules consulted (read on demand from .claude/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/)
Pull these via Read when shaping the plan:
development-workflow.md: small batches, trunk-always-green, definition of done.principles.md: the project invariants (.devrites/principles.md) the chosen approach must conform to.documentation.md: record plan-time decisions and rationale.../workspace-artifact-schema.md: artifact purposes, budgets, IDs, and read triggers.
Operating rules
- Requires a readied spec. Read the active workspace first; if
.devrites/ACTIVEis empty, the workspace has nospec.md, its readiness gate hasn't passed, or any spec-qualitychecklists/<domain>.mdhas an open CRITICAL → STOP and tell the user to run/rite-spec <feature>first. A missing or non-CLEARdecision-coverage.mdroutes to/rite-clarify. DO NOT plan from a missing, unreadied, or unclarified spec. - Apply
afk-hitl.mddecision ownership. Prefer conventions; source-check new dependencies or design systems, asking only about licensing/cost/security or explicit policy. - Author one section at a time. Write
architecture.mdandplan.mdsection by section, pausing after each. For an open design choice or uncertain estimate, use a relevant technique fromelicitation.md(Tournament for two viable designs, Delphi for the estimate) before it hardens into slices. - Derive the slice count from the work.
One per independently-shippable increment, sized by
slicing.md, every acceptance criterion mapped to ≥1 slice. A user-named count is a hint at most: slice logically and, if your honest count differs, present it and why. Never pad or compress to hit a figure. (.devrites/AFKmax_slicesis a separate AFK iteration budget, not the decomposition.) - Wide mechanical refactors slice expand → migrate → contract. If one repeated change crosses many files, don't fake vertical slices. Add a compatibility/adapter slice, migrate small green batches, then remove the old path. If a batch cannot stay green, use an integration branch plus a final verify slice.
- Root writes; drafter proposes. Use the file-backed fresh-context contract in
agents.md. The root owns architecture decisions, human questions, approval, and every canonical artifact write.
Workflow
- Read
.claude/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md: the always-on operating rules and anti-rationalizations. Then run the shared orientation preamble. It confirms the active feature and which artifacts exist (it printsstate.md, the artifacts present, the run mode, and the open-question tally):
If there is no active workspace, nodevrites-engine preamble devrites-engine snapshot devrites-engine spec-skeleton ".devrites/work/$(cat .devrites/ACTIVE 2>/dev/null)"spec.md,spec-skeletonblocks, or its readiness gate hasn't passed → STOP and tell the user to run/rite-spec <feature>first. Ifdecision-coverage.mdis absent or does not sayDecision coverage: CLEAR, STOP →/rite-clarify. - Read the spec:
spec.md(objective, requirements, acceptance, placement, design references, gaps/decisions), plusreferences.md,decisions.md,assumptions.md,decision-coverage.md,strategy.mdif present (the scope mode, deferred / out-of-scope register, and pre-mortem risks from/rite-temper: cut slices to mitigate the top risks and respect the IN/OUT line; map coverage against the hardened spec), anddesign-brief.mdif the feature touches UI (the UX/UI contract/rite-specshaped: its key states, interaction model, and proof targets drive how UI slices are cut). If a blocking[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]remains, stop →/rite-clarify. 1a. Draft from fresh context. Freeze the planning inputs and dispatchdevrites-plan-drafterindefinemode for one atomic candidate bundle:architecture.md,plan.md,tasks.md, andtraceability.md, including proof mapping. Await and validateagent-result/v1. The drafter does not write or ask; any human-owned choice returns to this root context. - Reconcile and decide the architecture + approach (the HOW the spec deliberately
omitted). Validate the candidate against live seams and the following rules; the root writes
accepted content at step 6. Shape
architecture.mdfor owning layer, boundaries, integration points, data/API/events, dependencies, risks, and affected areas; write only the build strategy inplan.md. Use a code-intelligence index if available (see.claude/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md) for structure/impact; for the current API or behaviour of an external library/framework the architecture will rely on, consult context7 if available. Record significant options asDEC-###. For high-cost/hard-to-reverse boundaries, data models, public contracts, or dependencies, compare ≥2 viable approaches by drivers, trade-offs, and consequences. Specify cross-boundary interfaces for independent work: invariants, I/O, ordering/idempotency, errors, versioning, config, and relevant budgets. Deep-module check: while sketching the major modules, look for opportunities to extract a deep module: a small, stable interface that hides a meaningful chunk of behavior and is independently testable. A shallow module whose interface is nearly as complex as its implementation adds no value; deepen it or delete it. Put independently testable deep-module behavior in the slice'sTests/proof;/rite-vetconfirms the level. 2a. Foreseeable-decision sweep. Inspect questions, assumptions, architecture, dependencies, proof prerequisites, and proposed checkpoints. Search facts and decide reversible technical calls. New product/acceptance/policy/irreversible-risk gaps return to/rite-clarify; a build checkpoint survives only for unavailable pre-code evidence or mandatory action-time approval. Completion: no known implementation choice is postponed for build to ask later. - Create vertical tasks: each delivers one observable capability end to end and
is verifiable on its own; the count emerges from the work, not a target number;
first slice = thinnest useful end-to-end path; order by dependency (risk-first within a
tier). For a broad mechanical refactor, use expand → migrate batches → contract instead
of pretending each touched file is a product slice; every migrate batch must stay green,
or route through an integration branch + final verify slice. Use
rite-plan/reference/slicing.mdandrite-plan/reference/task-breakdown.md. Mark per slice: Frontend craft required and Browser proof required (UI), and whether it's fullstack (FE+BE → contract first, seedevrites-frontend-craft/reference/fullstack.md). For UI slices, name which ofdesign-brief.md's key states + interaction the slice delivers, and give it a binary Visual acceptance target (state × viewport × input + target R-id/brief rule), so the design contract maps to slices as well as acceptance criteria.Tests/proofnames exact command, cwd, expected signal, prerequisites, and mutable provenance inputs;/rite-vetpreflights them. Write the portable repository command, never RTK/local wrappers, user-specific absolute paths, or temporary proof trees. - Map coverage and wiring: every
AC-###spec acceptance criterion maps to ≥1SLICE-###(rite-spec/reference/acceptance-criteria.md); no orphaned criteria, no slice without a criterion. Lift covered/backstopEdge Coveragerows and resolvedProhibitions (must-NOT)rows intotraceability.mdandtest-plan.md; unresolved rows get a gate/owner. Each cross-slice boundary names producer, consumer, invariant, integration step, and proof. 4a. Parallel-lane sanity check: after draftingtasks.mdbut before asking for plan approval, run the advisory lane planner:
Use it to spot independent read-only/review lanes and dependency mistakes, but do not weaken DevRites' default of one production-write slice at a time. 4b. Persist the traceability matrix: writedevrites-engine lanes plan "$(cat .devrites/ACTIVE 2>/dev/null)"traceability.md(AC/REQ ID → slice(s) → test/proof → evidence ID → touched files → status), the living map/rite-proveand/rite-sealwalk. Generate it withdevrites-engine coveragewhen available, then save/rename the output astraceability.md, or write the table by hand from the same inputs if the script is absent:S="$(cat .devrites/ACTIVE 2>/dev/null)" devrites-engine coverage "$S" > ".devrites/work/$S/traceability.md" - Complexity and deviations gate: justify anything outside DevRites defaults (new dep,
extra abstraction, second design system) in the plan; if you can't justify it, simplify.
Principles conformance: read
.devrites/principles.md(if present) and confirm the approach honors every declared invariant. A plan that conflicts with one is not "a deviation to justify away": either reshape the approach to conform, or, when the conflict is genuine and intended, route it through the Spec Drift Guard plus a recorded decision and a scoped principle exception a human approves. Never ready a plan that silently violates an invariant. (Re-scored as a blocking gate at/rite-vet; no file → none declared → nothing to check.) - Write
architecture.md,plan.md,tasks.md, andtraceability.md; updatestate.md(phase: plan → next/rite-vet). 6a. Cross-artifact gate: now thattasks.mdexists. Run the deterministic spec↔tasks coverage/consistency check; any non-zero result blocks plan readiness:S="$(cat .devrites/ACTIVE 2>/dev/null)" devrites-engine analyze "$S" - Readiness gate (plan-template): require CLEAR coverage, complete acceptance and
cross-slice wiring/proof, risk-first acyclic order, justified deviations, rollback, and a
closed decision sweep. Stop and confirm before code. Render the review-before-code
digest first:
Intent(one sentence from the spec),Done means(acceptance coverage x/y),Plan sanity(slice count + riskiest boundary/gate),Expected build interruptions(noneor only justified action-time gates), andBuild exactly this?(yes → approve; no →/rite-plan revise). When the human confirms the plan, writePlan approved: <iso>tostate.md(see state-workspace);/rite-buildchecks this exists before building.
tasks.md slice format
Use the canonical slice grammar in
workspace-artifact-schema.md.
Every slice must satisfy that complete field set; phase-specific gate details live in
reference/gates.md.
Mid-flight discipline. Do not skip vertical slicing, coverage mapping, or dependency ordering. See
anti-patterns.
Output
Progress first: run devrites-engine progress, then use the shared completion reply contract
(devrites-lib/reference/reply-contract.md).
Default success shape:
Done: plan written for <slug>; <n> vertical slices defined.
Changed: architecture.md, plan.md, tasks.md, traceability.md, decisions.md, state.md
Evidence: not applicable; acceptance coverage <x/y> mapped in traceability.md
Open: <none | plan questions | Alternative: /rite-plan revise to reshape artifacts>; review digest: intent + coverage + plan sanity rendered
Next: /rite-vet
Record: .devrites/work/<slug>/plan.md
↻ Hygiene: /clear after user confirms the plan
What ships with it: 3 files
14.3 KB alongside SKILL.md
reference/
- anti-patterns.md1.6 KB
- gates.md6.3 KB
- plan-template.md6.3 KB
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most plan spec skills give in ~3.0k tokens
Counted across 1,099 of the 1,860 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Ask one question at a timein 51 of 1099
- Break plans into vertical slicesin 29 of 1099, across 11 files
- Publish issues in dependency orderin 27 of 1099, across 9 files
- Iterate until user approves the breakdownin 25 of 1099, across 7 files
- Explore the repository to understand the codebase statein 24 of 1099, across 7 files
- Use domain glossary vocabularyin 23 of 1099, across 5 files
- Apply correct triage labels to published issuesin 23 of 1099, across 5 files
- Prefer AFK slices over HITLin 22 of 1099, across 7 files
- Write a specification before writing any codein 22 of 1099, across 14 files
- Write failing tests before implementation codein 22 of 1099, across 20 files
- Ask clarifying questions until requirements are concretein 21 of 1099, across 13 files
- Respect existing architecture decision recordsin 20 of 1099, across 5 files
Said here and by no other author read
- Read the active workspace and spec before planning
- Author architecture and plan files one section at a time
- Derive slice count from work, not a target number
- Structure mechanical refactors as expand, migrate, contract
- Dispatch the plan drafter from a fresh context
- Run the advisory lane planner before seeking approval
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.