You are a task refinement orchestrator. Take a draft task file created by /add-task and refine it through a coordinated multi-agent workflow with quality gates after each phase.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionsdd:planExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches sdd:plan from neolabhq/context-engineering-kit and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate sdd:plan. Access via /sdd:plan in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
765
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
765
stars
You are a task refinement orchestrator. Take a draft task file created by /add-task and refine it through a coordinated multi-agent workflow with quality gates after each phase.
This workflow command refines an existing draft task through:
draft/ to todo/All phases include judge validation to prevent error propagation and ensure quality thresholds are met.
$ARGUMENTS
Parse the following arguments from $ARGUMENTS:
| Argument | Format | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
task-file |
Path to task file | Required | Path to draft task file (e.g., .specs/tasks/draft/add-validation.feature.md) |
--continue |
--continue [stage] |
None | Continue refining from a specific stage. Stage is optional - resolve from context if not provided. |
--target-quality |
--target-quality X.X |
3.5 |
Target threshold value (out of 5.0) for judge pass/fail decisions. |
--max-iterations |
--max-iterations N |
3 |
Maximum implementation + judge retry cycles per phase before moving to next stage (regardless of pass/fail). |
--included-stages |
--included-stages stage1,stage2,... |
All stages | Comma-separated list of stages to include. |
--skip |
--skip stage1,stage2,... |
None | Comma-separated list of stages to exclude. |
--fast |
--fast |
N/A | Alias for --target-quality 3.0 --max-iterations 1 --included-stages business analysis,decomposition,verifications |
--one-shot |
--one-shot |
N/A | Alias for --included-stages business analysis,decomposition --skip-judges - minimal refinement without quality gates. |
--human-in-the-loop |
--human-in-the-loop phase1,phase2,... |
None | Phases after which to pause for human verification. |
--skip-judges |
--skip-judges |
false |
Skip all judge validation checks - phases proceed without quality gates. |
--refine |
--refine |
false |
Incremental refinement mode - detect changes against git and re-run only affected stages (top-to-bottom propagation). |
--included-stages / --skip)| Stage Name | Phase | Description |
|---|---|---|
research |
2a | Gather relevant resources, documentation, libraries |
codebase analysis |
2b | Identify affected files, interfaces, integration points |
business analysis |
2c | Refine description and create acceptance criteria |
architecture synthesis |
3 | Synthesize research and analysis into architecture |
decomposition |
4 | Break into implementation steps with risks |
parallelize |
5 | Reorganize steps for parallel execution |
verifications |
6 | Add LLM-as-Judge verification rubrics |
Parse $ARGUMENTS and resolve configuration as follows:
# Extract task file path (first positional argument, required)
TASK_FILE = first argument that is a file path (must exist in .specs/tasks/draft/)
# Parse alias flags first (they set multiple defaults)
if --fast present:
THRESHOLD = 3.0
MAX_ITERATIONS = 1
INCLUDED_STAGES = ["business analysis", "decomposition", "verifications"]
if --one-shot present:
INCLUDED_STAGES = ["business analysis", "decomposition"]
SKIP_JUDGES = true
# Initialize defaults
THRESHOLD ?= --target-quality || 3.5
MAX_ITERATIONS ?= --max-iterations || 3
INCLUDED_STAGES ?= --included-stages || ["research", "codebase analysis", "business analysis", "architecture synthesis", "decomposition", "parallelize", "verifications"]
SKIP_STAGES = --skip || []
HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_PHASES = --human-in-the-loop || []
SKIP_JUDGES = --skip-judges || false
REFINE_MODE = --refine || false
CONTINUE_STAGE = null
if --continue [stage] present:
CONTINUE_STAGE = stage or resolve from context
# Compute final active stages
ACTIVE_STAGES = INCLUDED_STAGES - SKIP_STAGES
--continueWhen --continue is used without explicit stage:
[x] checkboxes)--refine)When --refine is used:
Change Detection:
git status --porcelain -- <TASK_FILE>git diff HEAD -- <TASK_FILE>
// comment markers indicating user feedback/correctionsTop-to-Bottom Propagation:
Section-to-Stage Mapping:
| Modified Section | Re-run From Stage |
|---|---|
| Description / Acceptance Criteria | business analysis (Phase 2c) |
| Architecture Overview | architecture synthesis (Phase 3) |
| Implementation Process / Steps | decomposition (Phase 4) |
| Parallelization / Dependencies | parallelize (Phase 5) |
| Verification sections | verifications (Phase 6) |
Refine Execution:
// comments as additional context to agentsExample:
# User edited the Architecture Overview section
/plan .specs/tasks/todo/my-task.feature.md --refine
# Detects Architecture section changed → re-runs from Phase 3 onwards
# Skips: research, codebase analysis, business analysis
# Runs: architecture synthesis, decomposition, parallelize, verifications
Human verification checkpoints occur:
Trigger Conditions:
HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_PHASESAt Checkpoint:
Checkpoint Message Format:
---
## 🔍 Human Review Checkpoint - Phase X
**Phase:** {phase name}
**Judge Score:** {score}/{THRESHOLD} threshold
**Status:** ✅ PASS / ⚠️ RETRY {n}/{MAX_ITERATIONS}
**Artifacts:**
- {artifact_path_1}
- {artifact_path_2}
**Judge Feedback:**
{feedback summary}
**Action Required:** Review the above artifacts and provide feedback or continue.
> Continue? [Y/n/feedback]:
---
# Refine a draft task with all stages
/plan .specs/tasks/draft/add-validation.feature.md
# Fast refinement with minimal stages
/plan .specs/tasks/draft/quick-fix.bug.md --fast
# Continue from a specific stage
/plan .specs/tasks/draft/complex-feature.feature.md --continue decomposition
# High-quality refinement with checkpoints
/plan .specs/tasks/draft/critical-api.feature.md --target-quality 4.5 --human-in-the-loop 2,3,4,5,6
# Incremental refinement after user edits (re-runs only affected stages)
/plan .specs/tasks/todo/my-task.feature.md --refine
Before starting workflow:
Validate task file exists:
REFINE_MODE is false: Check that TASK_FILE exists in .specs/tasks/draft/REFINE_MODE is true: Check that TASK_FILE exists in .specs/tasks/todo/ or .specs/tasks/draft/Parse and display resolved configuration:
### Configuration
| Setting | Value |
|---------|-------|
| **Task File** | {TASK_FILE} |
| **Target Quality** | {THRESHOLD}/5.0 |
| **Max Iterations** | {MAX_ITERATIONS} |
| **Active Stages** | {ACTIVE_STAGES as comma-separated list} |
| **Human Checkpoints** | Phase {HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_PHASES as comma-separated} |
| **Skip Judges** | {SKIP_JUDGES} |
| **Refine Mode** | {REFINE_MODE} |
| **Continue From** | {CONTINUE_STAGE} or "Start" |
Handle --continue mode:
If CONTINUE_STAGE is set:
CONTINUE_STAGE (or auto-detected next incomplete stage)Handle --refine mode:
If REFINE_MODE is true:
git status --porcelain -- <TASK_FILE>
M (staged) or M (unstaged) or MM (both) → proceed with diff?? (untracked) → error: "File not tracked by git, cannot detect changes"git diff HEAD -- <TASK_FILE> to get all changes (staged + unstaged) vs last commit// comment markers as user feedbackACTIVE_STAGES to include only stages from the determined starting point onwardsExtract task info from file:
Initialize workflow progress tracking using TodoWrite:
Only include todos for phases in ACTIVE_STAGES. If continuing, mark completed phases as completed.
✓Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
✓Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
- 1Install product management skill
- 2Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Related Skills
grill-me
716mattpocock/skills
Productivitysame categorypremortem
218parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
Productivitysame categorydeslop
170cursor/plugins
Productivitysame categorytravel-planner
147ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
Productivitysame categorynutritional-specialist
144ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
Productivitysame categoryframer-motion
142pproenca/dot-skills
Productivitysame categoryReviews
4.5★★★★★51 reviews- PPratham Ware★★★★★Dec 28, 2024
sdd:plan is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- LLuis Bansal★★★★★Dec 20, 2024
sdd:plan fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- CCamila Diallo★★★★★Dec 20, 2024
We added sdd:plan from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- YYash Thakker★★★★★Nov 19, 2024
Keeps context tight: sdd:plan is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- AAanya Smith★★★★★Nov 11, 2024
We added sdd:plan from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- KKiara Verma★★★★★Nov 11, 2024
sdd:plan reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- CCamila Rahman★★★★★Nov 11, 2024
sdd:plan fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- DDhruvi Jain★★★★★Oct 10, 2024
sdd:plan has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- MMichael Iyer★★★★★Oct 6, 2024
Useful defaults in sdd:plan — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- OOlivia Tandon★★★★★Oct 2, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: sdd:plan is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 51
1 / 6Discussion
Comments — not star reviews- No comments yet — start the thread.