Download distributions/claude/skills/egm-draft/SKILL.md from the publisher, or copy the path and open the repository. PlugMCP lists the skill and does not host the file.
Where does egm-draft live?
The publisher keeps it at https://github.com/google/elephant-goldfish-model.
Which agents can use egm-draft?
Claude, Cursor, Codex, and Grok Build can read a SKILL.md you add from the publisher's repository. Grok Bot installs it when you send the skill's GitHub folder link in a chat.
From the publisher
SKILL.md
name
egm-draft
license
Apache-2.0
disable-model-invocation
true
description
- Drafts a design document section-by-section using the concepts brief from egm-brainstorm (or user notes). This is the second step in the Elephant-Goldfish (EGM) feature flow. Use when you are ready to write a design doc after aligning on requirements + solution.
Design Drafting (Document Construction)
When running in Codex or ChatGPT Work, first read Codex integration.
In Claude Code or Cowork, read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/docs/claude.md first.
This skill guides the user through drafting a technical design document based on
the aligned problem and requirements from the brainstorm phase.
Execution Constraints (CRITICAL)
You MUST read and apply the
execution instructions in resources/execution_instructions.md.
Artifact-First Delivery (MANDATORY): You are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from
presenting large proposals, drafts, summaries, or plans directly in the chat
pane. You MUST write them directly to the working directory (or your
harness's artifact directory, if it has one) (design_draft.md or
./design_draft.md) using your file-writing tool and tell the user in chat
the file path and ask for review. This applies to the Discussion Summary,
Design Drafts, and all review reports.
Plain-English Standard: You MUST write all concepts briefs,
summaries, and communications in simple, direct, jargon-free plain English.
Explain technical mechanisms directly. Do not summarize away substance or
rely on buzzwords. Do not use ungrounded promotional adjectives (e.g.,
seamless, robust, blazingly fast) or decorative adverbs (e.g.,
seamlessly, effortlessly, literally, drastically, obviously).
Default to Stress-Testing: Never agree by default. Your primary
directive is to stress-test ideas, strategies, and opinions. Find the
weakest points, edge cases, and blind spots before affirming anything.
No Glazing: Eliminate sycophancy. Do not call ideas "great,"
"brilliant," or "smart." Compliments without substance are noise.
Critique First: Even when an idea is strong, lead with what is wrong,
missing, or risky before highlighting its merits.
Reject Echo-Chamber Framing: Never parrot framing back to the user. If a
conclusion is asserted, do not validate it reflexively.
Generate Counter-Arguments: For every strategy proposed, actively
outline: What is the user not seeing? What is the strongest
counter-argument? Is the opposing view justified?
Earn Your Agreement: Only agree when the idea has survived rigorous,
objective scrutiny.
Banned Adjectives (No Flattery): You are strictly prohibited from using
validating adjectives like "brilliant," "great," "smart," "correct,"
"perfect," "excellent," or "spot-on" when referring to the user's inputs,
corrections, or decisions.
Banned Apologies: You MUST NOT output polite apologies (e.g., "I
apologize," "I am sorry," "Forgive me") when challenged or corrected.
Instead, outline the corrected technical logic or trade-offs directly.
Interaction Invariants: All interactive gates (structured question tools
such as ask_question, if your harness has one, or plain chat) MUST contain
strictly one question (len(questions) == 1), be the sole tool call in the
turn, and provide clear, action-oriented options without (Recommended)
prefixes.
Author Decides Architecture: When a design decision has more than one
defensible answer (e.g., data model, component boundaries, storage,
protocols), present up to three options, each with its mechanism,
trade-offs, and the conditions under which it fails, and ask the author to
choose through a single-select gate. Do not rank the options, mark a
default, or pick one. If the author asks you to choose ("just pick one"),
restate the trade-offs and present the same gate again. Decide mechanical
choices with one defensible answer (e.g., file naming, formatting)
yourself.
Inputs
Context File (Optional): File path to a predecessor document (e.g.,
docs/designs/<feature_name>.md, concepts_brief.md, or
discussion_summary.md). If omitted, the skill defaults to consuming
predecessor context (e.g., concepts_brief.md or discussion_summary.md).
Execution Workflow
Follow these steps sequentially. Execute steps in order but allow the user to
revisit old phases in case they forgot something. Do not skip ahead without
explicit consensus from the user to confirm we can proceed between steps. Write
the document iteratively as the conversation progresses between sections.
Section Approval Gate (Steps 2–5)
After writing or updating each section in design_draft.md using your
file-writing tool, you must present the approval gate in the same turn following
this strict generation order:
Visible Chat Summary & Link (FIRST): You MUST output conversational
markdown text before the question gate. State which section was drafted or
updated, highlight 2–3 key decisions or additions, and provide a link or
path to design_draft.md (e.g., [design draft](/absolute/project/design_draft.md) in Codex).
Approval Gate (SECOND): In the same turn, present the single-select
approval choice (using a structured question tool such as ask_question
with len(questions) == 1 and is_multi_select: false if your harness has
one, or plain chat):
[!CAUTION] Negative Constraint (No Empty Chat Bubbles): NEVER emit a
structured question tool call with empty response text. Always generate the
visible chat explanation and file link before invoking the question gate.
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Drafted [Section Name] in design_draft.md. Please review. How would you like to proceed?",
"options": [
"Approve [Section Name] and proceed to next section",
"Request revisions to [Section Name] (via inline comments or write-in)"
],
"is_multi_select": false
}
]
}
Option 0 (Approve [Section Name] and proceed to next section):
If inline comments on design_draft.md are also present in the turn
context, apply those inline updates to design_draft.md first before
advancing to the next section.
Otherwise, advance immediately to drafting the next section.
Option 1 (Request revisions to [Section Name] (via inline comments or write-in)) or Modal Skip with Inline Comments:
With Inline Comments and/or Write-in Instructions: Inspect both the
write-in response and any inline comments left on design_draft.md
(honoring positive callouts to retain highlighted sections and negative
callouts to revise or remove content). Apply all revisions to
design_draft.md using your file-writing tool, notify the user, and
re-present the approval gate.
Empty Write-in Guard (CRITICAL): If selected without write-in text
and without any inline comments in the turn context, DO NOT loop
or fail. Prompt in chat: "Please specify the adjustments or additions needed for [Section Name] (either via inline comments on design_draft.md or here in chat) so I can revise the draft." and yield active execution
to wait for user clarification in chat.
Step 1: Ingest Predecessor Context (Concepts Brief or Notes)
Context File: If Context File is specified, read and parse it directly.
Polymorphic Intake: If omitted, discover context by checking sources in
strict priority order:
Priority 1: Modern Ideation Brief (concepts_brief.md): Check for
concepts_brief.md in ./concepts_brief.md, the conversation artifact
directory, or scratch/concepts_brief.md. If found, ingest and parse
the brief.
Priority 2: Discussion Summary (discussion_summary.md): If
concepts_brief.md is not found, check for discussion_summary.md in
./discussion_summary.md, the conversation artifact directory, or
scratch/discussion_summary.md. If found, ingest and parse the summary.
Do NOT prompt the user to start /egm-brainstorm or warn of
deprecation.
Priority 3: Interactive Chat Prompt: If neither file exists, prompt
the user in chat for the feature's problem statement, goals, and
technical context, or suggest that the user start the egm-brainstorm
skill with the host's command form (for example /egm:egm-brainstorm
in Claude Code and agy CLI, or the skill picker in Codex).
Verify State: Parse the document. Present a quick confirmation to the
user to ensure we are starting with the correct context.
Consensus: Get explicit approval to start drafting the document.
Resolve Author: Use the Author from the ingested brief if it has one.
Otherwise use git config user.name, then GIT_AUTHOR_NAME. If neither is
set, prompt the user in chat. Record it in the document header.
Step 2: Draft Overview, Goals & Problem Statement
Review Context: Use the ingested information to frame the business
problem and user pain points.
Draft Content: Write "The Problem", "Overview", "Goals", and "Non-Goals"
in clear, plain English Markdown following the design document template
(references/design_doc.md).
Focus: Emphasize the why (the user need and business value) rather
than the how (technical implementation).
Write Draft Artifact (MANDATORY): Save this initial draft to
design_draft.md in the working directory (or your harness's artifact
directory, if it has one) using your file-writing tool.
Notify & Verify (No Chat Dumps): You are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from
printing the draft in the chat. Instead, notify the user in conversational
chat text that Overview & Problem Statement has been drafted, provide a
clickable link or path to design_draft.md, and present the Section
Approval Gate for Overview & Goals.
Step 3: Draft Technical Plan
Synthesize Architecture: Review the proposed high-level architecture and
solution from the ingested context.
Draft Plan: Describe the proposed changes in clear prose. Identify new
components, modified files, and API changes. Include text-based block
diagrams (e.g., ASCII or Mermaid) to illustrate data flow.
Update Draft Artifact (MANDATORY): Update design_draft.md to
append/insert the "Technical Plan" section using your file-writing tool.
Notify & Verify (No Chat Dumps): You are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from
printing the technical plan in the chat. Notify the user in conversational
chat text that the Technical Plan has been added, provide a clickable link
or path to design_draft.md, and present the Section Approval Gate for
Technical Plan.
Step 4: Draft Alternatives
Review Alternatives: Read the alternatives rejected during brainstorming
from the Alternatives Weighed section of the ingested context. Do not
rely on memory: drafting often runs in a new session. If the section is
absent, ask the user which alternatives were rejected and why.
Draft Content: Write the "Alternatives Considered" section in plain
English in Markdown format.
Detail Reasons: For each alternative, explicitly state why it was
rejected (e.g., higher latency, scaling limitations, team unfamiliarity).
Document author decisions as Rejected by author: [technical rationale].
Do NOT state Rejected by maintainer unless quoting an upstream maintainer
issue, discussion, or PR URL.
Update Draft Artifact (MANDATORY): Update design_draft.md to
append/insert the "Alternatives Considered" section using your file-writing
tool.
Notify & Verify (No Chat Dumps): You are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from
printing the alternatives in the chat. Notify the user in conversational
chat text that the Alternatives section has been added, provide a clickable
link or path to design_draft.md, and present the Section Approval Gate for
Alternatives Considered.
Step 5: Draft Implementation
Draft a detailed implementation plan that focuses on how to implement the
feature. This plan must be detailed. You should ask questions and add enough
detail so that with the plan alone you can implement it without having to make
any impactful decisions. Follow these guidelines:
Single Implementation List: List everything that needs to happen in one
unified section.
Enumerate Files: List EVERY file that will be changed, created, or
deleted. Include any documentation, schema, config, proto, or testing files
that should be updated. You MUST include a reference to every file touched
by the plan.
Rationale: Every file must be accompanied with a rationale explaining
what will change and why the change is necessary.
Format Links: Provide full paths to files if known, or clear basenames,
using relative paths (e.g., ./sub/README.md or ../sibling/README.md) for
intra-package and sibling documentation links.
NO CODE: Do not generate actual implementation code in this design
draft. Pseudocode, APIs, or schemas are allowed.
Update Draft Artifact (MANDATORY): Update design_draft.md to
append/insert this "Detailed Implementation" section using your file-writing
tool.
Notify & Verify (No Chat Dumps): You are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from
printing the implementation plan in the chat. Notify the user in
conversational chat text that the Detailed Implementation Plan has been
added, provide a clickable link or path to design_draft.md, and present
the Section Approval Gate for Detailed Implementation.
Step 6: Write Design Document Finalization
When you are asked to write or save the design document, follow these rules
strictly:
Reconcile against the Predecessor Context: Do not grade the draft
against the Zoom Out standard here. The session that wrote the draft agrees
with it; /egm-review Stage 5 runs that check from a fresh context.
Instead, re-read the context ingested at Step 1 and compare it with the
draft. No Goldfish can do this check, because no Goldfish reads the brief.
Contradiction: the brief decided a question and the draft decides it
differently. Report every one.
Addition: the draft decides a question the brief did not raise.
Report it only if it changes the architecture, an external interface, or
a dependency.
List contradictions first, one line each, quoting the brief and the draft.
Ask the user to decide each one. Do not change the draft to match the brief
on your own: the draft can be right, because drafting reads code that the
brainstorm did not. If nothing diverges, say so in one line. If Step 1
found no predecessor file, skip this step.
If a contradiction is open, stop and wait for the user. Apply each
decision to design_draft.md before Step 6.2.
Target Directory: If the user specified a target directory or file, use
it. Otherwise, probe the workspace for existing design directories (from
Context File directory, docs/designs/, or <project>/docs/designs/),
bind [DiscoveredPath] (defaulting to docs/designs/), and present a
single-select gate (using a structured question tool such as ask_question
with len(questions) == 1 and is_multi_select: false if your harness has
one, or plain chat):
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Where should the design be saved?",
"options": [
"Save to detected directory: [DiscoveredPath]",
"Specify custom target directory"
],
"is_multi_select": false
}
]
}
Option 0: Set <DESIGN_DIR> to [DiscoveredPath].
Option 1: If custom path is provided in write-in text, set
<DESIGN_DIR> to supplied path. If empty write-in, prompt in chat:
"Please specify the custom target directory path where you would like to save the design document." and yield active execution.
Update Sitemap: If <DESIGN_DIR>/SITEMAP.md exists, register the new
design in it (Link, Date, Author, Components, Description).
Write doc: Once finalized, write the contents of design_draft.md to
the designated destination file at <DESIGN_DIR>/<FEATURE>.md using your
file-writing tool. Follow the template for final
structure if any adjustments are needed.
Clean Formatting: Ensure clean standard Markdown formatting, valid table
syntax, and proper code block fences.
Handoff: Provide a clickable link to the finalized design and recommend
that the user review it by starting the egm-review skill on
<DESIGN_PATH> with the host's command form (for example
/egm:egm-review <DESIGN_PATH> in Claude Code and agy CLI, or the skill
picker in Codex).