Agent skill

fp-brief

First-principles briefing from technical documents. Use when: understanding why decisions were made, onboarding to feature reasoning, reviewing decision chains, explaining doc from first principles. Not for: PM/CTO summary (use project-brief), pre-doc analysis (use feasibility-study), code explanation (use codex-explain). Output: structured reasoning chain with sensitivity analysis.

Stars 139
Forks 18

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow/tree/main/skills/fp-brief

SKILL.md

First-Principles Briefing Skill

Trigger

  • Keywords: first principles, fp brief, why was this decided, reasoning chain, decision sensitivity, explain decisions, assumption analysis, onboarding brief

When NOT to Use

Scenario Alternative
PM/CTO executive summary (strip technical details) /project-brief
Pre-doc feasibility analysis (before writing spec) /feasibility-study
Code explanation at function/file level /codex-explain
Code architecture overview /code-explore
Simple document summary Ask Claude directly

Command Signature

/fp-brief <doc-path> [--depth brief|normal|deep] [--verify off|codex] [--output <path>] [--no-save]
Flag Default Description
<doc-path> Required Source markdown document path
--depth normal Output detail level
--verify off Independent Codex reasoning verification
--output Same dir, -fp-brief.md suffix Custom output path
--no-save false Print to stdout instead of file

Workflow

mermaid
sequenceDiagram
    participant U as User
    participant S as /fp-brief
    participant D as Source Doc
    participant O as Output File
    participant X as Codex (optional)

    U->>S: /fp-brief <doc-path> [--depth] [--verify]
    Note over S: Phase 1: Input Resolution
    S->>S: Validate path (repo boundary)
    S->>D: Read source document
    S->>S: Redaction scan (fail-safe)
    S->>S: Auto-detect format (hybrid)
    Note over S: Phase 2: First-Principles Extraction
    S->>S: Extract Root Problem (5-Why)
    S->>S: Build Assumptions Register
    S->>S: Build Reasoning Chain
    S->>S: Build Alternative Rejection Log
    S->>S: Build Decision Sensitivity
    S->>S: Identify Open Unknowns
    Note over S: Phase 3: Output Assembly
    S->>O: Write *-fp-brief.md
    alt --verify codex
        S->>X: Independent reasoning verification
        X-->>S: Verification Delta
        S->>O: Append Verification Delta
    end
    S-->>U: Report complete

Phase 1: Input Resolution

  1. Path validation: Normalize, reject .. traversal, enforce repo boundary
  2. Read source document
  3. Redaction scan: High-confidence secret patterns → abort; medium → mask [REDACTED]
  4. Format auto-detection: See references/detection-rules.md
  5. Select extraction template based on detected format

Phase 2: First-Principles Extraction

See references/extraction-guide.md for section-by-section heuristics.

Section Core Question
Root Problem What fundamental truth makes this problem unavoidable?
Assumptions Register What are we taking for granted, and why?
Reasoning Chain How does each decision trace back to a principle?
Alternative Rejection Log Why do other approaches violate our principles?
Decision Sensitivity If assumption X breaks, which decisions collapse?
Open Unknowns What don't we know, and what should we find out?

For long documents (>500 lines): split by ## headings, extract per-section, merge + dedup.

Phase 3: Output Assembly

  1. Apply depth filter (section inclusion matrix)
  2. Apply source citations (reference source doc section headings)
  3. Apply Evidence Insufficient Rule — never fabricate content for thin sections
  4. Write output file (or stdout if --no-save)
  5. If --verify codex: dispatch verification per references/codex-verify-prompt.md

Depth Levels

Level Description Sections Included
brief Core reasoning only (~500 words max) Root Problem (full), Assumptions (top 3), Reasoning Chain (key decisions), Sensitivity (top 3)
normal Full reasoning chain (~1500 words max) All 6 sections with citations
deep Full chain + analysis (~2500 words max) All 6 sections + challenge questions, evidence ratings, counterfactual analysis, risk-weighted unknowns

Verification Delta (section 7) appears only when --verify codex is used, at any depth level.

Length policy: These are upper bounds, not targets. If source doc is thin, output will be shorter. The Evidence Insufficient Rule applies: [Evidence insufficient — source doc lacks data for this section].

Output

See references/output-template.md for full template.

markdown
# First-Principles Briefing: <title>

> Source: <path> | Depth: <level> | Format: <type> | Generated: <timestamp>

## 1. Root Problem
## 2. Assumptions Register
## 3. Reasoning Chain
## 4. Alternative Rejection Log
## 5. Decision Sensitivity
## 6. Open Unknowns
## 7. Verification Delta (optional)

Save Behavior

Condition Output Path
Default Same directory as source, -fp-brief.md suffix
--output <path> Specified path
--no-save stdout only, no file written

Example: docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.mddocs/features/auth/2-tech-spec-fp-brief.md

Verification

  • Input path validated (repo boundary enforced)
  • Secret redaction scan executed
  • Format auto-detection result shown in output header
  • Each Reasoning Chain decision cites source section (Source: §<ref>)
  • Each Assumptions Register entry has confidence level
  • Decision Sensitivity maps assumptions to affected decisions
  • Evidence Insufficient markers used where source data is thin
  • Output length within depth-level upper bound
  • If --verify codex: Codex researched independently (per codex-invocation rules)

References

  • Output template: references/output-template.md
  • Detection rules: references/detection-rules.md
  • Extraction guide: references/extraction-guide.md
  • Codex verification: references/codex-verify-prompt.md

Examples

Input: /fp-brief docs/features/seek-verdict/2-tech-spec.md
Action: Read spec → detect tech-spec → extract 6 sections → write 2-tech-spec-fp-brief.md

Input: /fp-brief docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md --depth brief
Action: Read spec → extract Root Problem + top assumptions + key decisions + top sensitivity → brief output

Input: /fp-brief docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md --depth deep --verify codex
Action: Read spec → full extraction → Codex independent verification → write with Verification Delta

Input: /fp-brief notes/design-decisions.md --no-save
Action: Read doc → detect unknown format → generic extraction → print to stdout

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

runbook

Generate and update feature release runbooks from existing docs and codebase. Use when: creating operational runbook, release handbook, deployment checklist, pre-release preparation. Not for: incident response (v2), code review (use codex-code-review), architecture design (use architecture).

139 18
Explore
sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

ask

Context-aware Q&A with auto context gathering. Use when: user has a quick question about codebase, git history, rules, docs, or skills during development. Not for: code changes (use feature-dev), code review (use codex-review-fast), deep research (use deep-research), full code trace (use code-explore). Output: structured answer with source attribution.

139 18
Explore
sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

project-brief

Convert a technical spec into a PM/CTO-readable executive summary. Simplify technical details, focus on business value.

139 18
Explore
sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

codex-test-gen

Generate unit tests for specified functions using Codex MCP

139 18
Explore
sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

bug-fix

Bug fix workflow. Use when: fixing bugs, resolving issues, regression fixes. Not for: new features (use feature-dev), understanding code (use code-explore). Output: fix + regression test + review gate.

139 18
Explore
sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

skill-health-check

Validate skill quality against routing, progressive loading, and verification criteria. Use when: auditing skills, checking skill health, reviewing skill design. Not for: code review (use codex-code-review) or doc review (use doc-review). Output: health report with per-skill ratings + Gate.

139 18
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results