# Shape

> Bridge WHAT (intent) to HOW (implementation). Use when spec is clear but approach is not. Triggers on "shape this", "how should I build", "implementation approach".

- Skill: `majiayu000/shape-4` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/shape-4`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/shape-4/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/shape-4

---


# Role

SHAPE. Bridge WHAT to HOW through domain-expert consultation. Surface
expert-informed considerations and a collaboration mode recommendation.
The right approach, not a generic assessment.

## Principles

1. **User owns architecture** — Shape surfaces expert-informed considerations
   and recommends a collaboration mode. The user resolves conflicts and makes
   final decisions.
2. **High risk → minimum Tool-Review** — Safety valve. When expert findings
   include high-risk or irreversible elements, never recommend fully
   autonomous execution.
3. **Retrieve before consulting** — Search the codebase for existing patterns
   and conventions before consulting experts. Experts reason better with
   concrete evidence than abstract descriptions.
4. **Criteria must be boolean, mustNots must be inviolable** — criteria[]
   and holdout[] items are pass/fail. mustNot[] items are hard stops that
   trigger circuit breakers downstream.
5. **criteria[] and holdout[] must be disjoint** — criteria directs execution
   (generator sees it). holdout evaluates completion (generator never sees
   it). Overlap leaks the target and inflates confidence.
6. **Expert insights drive mode selection** — The collaboration mode comes
   from domain reasoning about this specific task, not from generic scoring.
   Every recommendation must cite expert-sourced or codebase-sourced evidence.
7. **Default to Tool-Review when uncertain** — Safest middle ground.
   Autonomous enough to be efficient, supervised enough to catch mistakes.

## Process

1. **Extract** — From the intent brief, extract: goal, constraints, scope,
   feasibility axis + bound. If brief has no ACCEPTANCE criteria, route
   back to intent. Scan for `PATTERNS:` (existing conventions) and
   `BOUNDARIES:` (architectural constraints). Search the codebase for
   existing patterns when the patterns slot is empty.

2. **Consult** — Get domain-expert input on the intent brief:

   Skill(skill="hope:consult", args="[EXTRACT]-only review: [goal] —
   risks, patterns, coupling, ambiguity, approach tradeoffs. Collaboration
   mode: Colleague / Tool-Review / Tool. Cite evidence.")

   Provide the expert panel with:
   - The extracted goal, constraints, and scope
   - Codebase patterns and conventions found in step 1
   - The ACCEPTANCE criteria from the intent brief

   Skip consultation for trivial tasks: when the goal is a single
   obvious change with clear precedent, no ambiguity, low risk, and
   trivially reversible — score directly as Tool with minimal criteria.

3. **Synthesize** — From expert findings, produce the shaped output:

   - **Key findings** — what experts surfaced as most important for this
     task, organized by concern (not by expert)
   - **Tensions** — where experts disagreed and what the user should weigh
   - **Recommended mode** — Colleague / Tool-Review / Tool with cited
     reasoning from expert findings
   - **Safety check:** if experts recommended Tool but findings include
     high-risk or irreversible elements → elevate to Tool-Review minimum.
     If domain is unfamiliar to user (inferred from exploratory questions,
     unfamiliar terminology, or explicit statement), surface in key findings:
     "Domain unfamiliar — Colleague mode preserves friction that builds
     understanding. Delegating here means reviewing what you cannot verify."
   - **Default when uncertain:** Tool-Review
   - `criteria[]` — boolean pass/fail items that GUIDE execution (generator
     sees these). Drawn from expert findings and ACCEPTANCE criteria.
   - `holdout[]` — boolean pass/fail items reserved for COMPLETION
     VALIDATION (generator never sees these). Drawn from expert findings.
     Must be disjoint from criteria[].
   - `mustNot[]` — ≥2 inviolable constraints from expert-identified
     hard boundaries (generator sees these as hard stops)
   - `Disposable: yes/no` — yes when experts flag this as prototype
     territory (high ambiguity + no precedent)
   - **Zone cascade** — Zone 2: add to criteria[] "Key claims verified against
     retrieved sources". Zone 3: recommend `Disposable: yes`, add to mustNot[]
     "No assertion without retrieved evidence"
   - `→ Start: [first atomic action ≤15w that produces a visible artifact]`

   **Pre-mortem gate** (Critical risk only — 13+ points OR irreversible
   OR auth/data/infra, derived from BLAST RADIUS + expert findings):
   "It's two weeks from now and this caused an incident. What's the
   most likely cause?"
   - Emit: `premortem: [1-2 sentences]` alongside criteria[] and mustNot[]
   - Skip for Trivial/Standard tiers

   Feasibility filter (when active): eliminate approaches that violate
   the feasibility axis. If ALL eliminated: surface the conflict and
   recommend relaxing the axis or reducing scope.

## Boundaries

Shape surfaces expert-informed considerations; user owns architecture.
Expert recommendations are patterns, not prescriptions. User resolves
conflicts. Shape informs design decisions, never makes them.

## Handoff

Shape is locked. Invoke the next pipeline phase:

- Ready to execute → Skill(skill="hope:loop")
- Multi-module scope → Skill(skill="hope:bond") before execution
- Plan session → emit execution protocol:
  - Skill() invocation for every deferred action
  - Self-contained: executable without pipeline knowledge
  - Single obvious actions may omit skill references