plugins/cache/nyldn-plugins/octo/9.30.0/skills/skill-intent-contract/SKILL.md
Lock in user goals upfront and validate outputs against them — use to prevent scope drift
npx skillsauth add moliboy5000/.claude skill-intent-contractInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
The intent contract creates a persistent record of user intent that:
This closes the loop between intention and delivery.
The intent contract is stored in .claude/session-intent.md and follows this format:
# Intent Contract
**Created**: [ISO timestamp]
**Workflow**: [discover/embrace/review/etc.]
**Status**: [active/validating/completed]
## Job Statement
What the user is trying to accomplish (JTBD framework).
[User's goal in plain language]
## Success Criteria
### Good Enough
- [Minimum viable success criterion 1]
- [Minimum viable success criterion 2]
### Exceptional
- [Excellence criterion 1]
- [Excellence criterion 2]
## Boundaries
What this should NOT be:
- [Boundary 1: What to avoid]
- [Boundary 2: What's out of scope]
## Context & Constraints
**Stakeholders**: [Who needs this to work for them]
**Existing Assets**: [What to build on]
**Timeline**: [Time constraints if any]
**Technical Constraints**: [Platform, language, dependencies]
## Clarifying Context
[Any answers from the 3-question pattern]
## Validation Checklist
- [ ] Meets "good enough" criteria
- [ ] Respects all boundaries
- [ ] Works for all stakeholders
- [ ] Builds on existing assets appropriately
Create an intent contract when:
/octo:embrace, /octo:discover, /octo:plan)Do NOT create for:
After asking the 3 clarifying questions in a workflow, prompt the user to define:
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "What are you ultimately trying to accomplish?",
header: "Goal",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{label: "Let me describe it", description: "I'll write my own goal statement"},
{label: "Make a decision", description: "Choose between options"},
{label: "Create deliverable", description: "Build something specific"},
{label: "Understand a problem", description: "Research and learn"}
]
},
{
question: "What defines success for this?",
header: "Success",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{label: "Clear recommendation", description: "Know what to do next"},
{label: "Working implementation", description: "Code that functions"},
{label: "Team alignment", description: "Everyone understands"},
{label: "Problem solved", description: "Issue is resolved"}
]
},
{
question: "What should this NOT be or do?",
header: "Boundaries",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{label: "Over-engineered", description: "Keep it simple"},
{label: "Incomplete", description: "Must be production-ready"},
{label: "Disconnected", description: "Must fit our architecture"},
{label: "Risky", description: "Avoid experimental approaches"}
]
}
]
})
If user selects "Let me describe it", follow up with a text prompt for their custom goal.
Use the Write tool to create .claude/session-intent.md:
cat > .claude/session-intent.md <<EOF
# Intent Contract
**Created**: $(date -u +"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ")
**Workflow**: ${WORKFLOW_NAME}
**Status**: active
## Job Statement
${USER_GOAL}
## Success Criteria
### Good Enough
${MIN_SUCCESS_CRITERIA}
### Exceptional
${EXCEPTIONAL_CRITERIA}
## Boundaries
What this should NOT be:
${BOUNDARIES}
## Context & Constraints
**Stakeholders**: ${STAKEHOLDERS}
**Timeline**: ${TIMELINE}
## Clarifying Context
${THREE_QUESTION_ANSWERS}
## Validation Checklist
- [ ] Meets "good enough" criteria
- [ ] Respects all boundaries
- [ ] Works for all stakeholders
EOF
Throughout the workflow, periodically read .claude/session-intent.md to:
At key decision points, explicitly say:
Checking against intent contract: [reference specific criterion]
When the workflow completes, read .claude/session-intent.md and validate:
Validation Process:
Read the intent contract
Check each success criterion:
Check boundaries:
Generate validation report:
# Validation Report
## Success Criteria Check
### Good Enough Criteria
- [✓] Criterion 1: [How it was met]
- [✗] Criterion 2: [Why not met, what's needed]
### Exceptional Criteria
- [~] Criterion 1: [Partial progress explanation]
## Boundary Check
All boundaries respected: [Yes/No]
- Boundary 1: [✓/✗] [Explanation]
## Gaps & Next Steps
[If any criteria not met, list concrete next steps]
## Overall Assessment
[Summary: Does this fulfill the original intent?]
Update the Status field in .claude/session-intent.md:
active → workflow in progressvalidating → checking against criteriacompleted → all criteria met, boundaries respectedincomplete → some criteria not met, gaps identified1. Ask 3 clarifying questions (scope, focus, autonomy)
2. Create intent contract
3. DISCOVER phase (reference intent)
4. DEFINE phase (reference intent)
5. DEVELOP phase (reference intent)
6. DELIVER phase (reference intent)
7. Validate against intent contract
8. Present validation report
1. Ask 3 clarifying questions (depth, focus, output)
2. Create intent contract
3. Execute multi-provider research
4. Synthesize findings
5. Validate against intent contract
6. Present validation report
1. Capture comprehensive intent
2. Create intent contract
3. Route to appropriate workflows
4. Execute custom sequence
5. Validate against intent contract
6. Present validation report
# Intent Contract
**Created**: 2026-01-21T15:30:00Z
**Workflow**: embrace
**Status**: active
## Job Statement
Build a user authentication system that our team can implement and maintain.
## Success Criteria
### Good Enough
- Team understands what to build
- Clear technical approach selected
- Security considerations documented
- Implementation plan with steps
### Exceptional
- Multiple authentication methods evaluated
- Security audit performed
- Code examples provided
- Integration tests included
## Boundaries
What this should NOT be:
- Over-engineered with unnecessary features
- Disconnected from our existing Node.js/Express stack
- Experimental or unproven technologies
## Context & Constraints
**Stakeholders**: Development team (5 engineers), Product manager
**Existing Assets**: Express.js API, PostgreSQL database
**Timeline**: Need to start implementation next sprint
**Technical Constraints**: Must work with Express.js, PostgreSQL
## Clarifying Context
**Scope**: Medium feature (multiple components)
**Focus Areas**: Security, Architecture design
**Autonomy**: Supervised (review after each phase)
## Validation Checklist
- [ ] Meets "good enough" criteria
- [ ] Respects all boundaries
- [ ] Works for all stakeholders
- [ ] Builds on existing assets appropriately
For Users:
For Workflows:
Ready to use! Workflows can now create and validate against persistent intent contracts.
tools
MANDATORY prerequisite — load this skill BEFORE every `generate_diagram` tool call. NEVER call `generate_diagram` directly without loading this skill first. Trigger whenever the user asks to create, generate, draw, render, sketch, or build a diagram — flowchart, architecture diagram, sequence diagram, ERD or entity-relationship diagram, state diagram or state machine, gantt chart, or timeline. Also trigger when the user mentions Mermaid syntax or wants a system architecture, decision tree, dependency graph, API call flow, auth handshake, schema, or pipeline visualized in FigJam. Routes to type-specific guidance, sets universal Mermaid constraints, and tells you when to use a different diagram type or skip the tool entirely (mindmaps, pie charts, class diagrams, etc.).
development
DEFAULT PIPELINE for all tasks requiring execution. You (Claude) are the strategic orchestrator. Codex agents are your implementation army - hyper-focused coding specialists. Trigger on ANY task involving code, file modifications, codebase research, multi-step work, or implementation. This is NOT optional - Codex agents are the default for all execution work. Only skip if the user explicitly asks you to do something yourself.
development
This skill should be used when the user asks to analyze a UI screen recording and map interaction states into Figma. Trigger for requests such as "put video frames in Figma", "extract states from my recording", "map interactions from video to Figma", "analyze this screen recording", "create a storyboard from my video", "deconstruct this interaction in Figma", "annotate the UI states in my recording", or "pull the key moments from this video into Figma". Also trigger when the user references a video file (.mp4, .mov, .webm, .avi) together with Figma, design review, interaction analysis, prototypes, or UI states. The skill extracts key visual moments from a video, infers interaction triggers, and builds an annotated Figma Design storyboard using native Figma annotations and uploaded screenshot assets.
development
Generate a FigJam project plan board from a PRD plus codebase context. Interactive flow: research → propose sections → per-section deep research → per-section content + block-shape proposal → create FigJam → skeleton → fill → diagrams → wrap. Each content block (section, nested section, intro callout, table, multi-column text, sticky column, diagram section, metadata strip) has its own subskill reference file. Use when the user asks for 'project plan in FigJam', 'interactive project plan', '/generate-project-plan', or provides a PRD and wants per-section confirmation on content + rendering.