Time-boxed throwaway investigation to answer one hard question. Use when facing technical uncertainty before committing to a frontier item or scoped slice — the output is knowledge, not production code.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add hashintel/brunch --skill ln-spike --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ln Spike?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hashintel-ln-spike)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ln-spike
description: "Time-boxed throwaway investigation to answer one hard question. Use when facing technical uncertainty before committing to a frontier item or scoped slice — the output is knowledge, not production code."
argument-hint: "[question to answer and what you'll try]"
---
# Ln Spike
Retire one uncertainty. Output is knowledge, not code — spike code is throwaway, never promoted directly (Beck, XP). One question per spike; if multiple unknowns exist, run multiple spikes.
Spike notes are temporary. Reconcile durable findings into `memory/SPEC.md` and `memory/PLAN.md` instead of inventing standalone investigation docs unless the user explicitly asks for one.
## Input
The question and approach: $ARGUMENTS
## Investigate
1. State the question and what would constitute an answer.
2. Time-box the investigation. Stop when answered or exhausted.
3. Write a verdict.
## Spike Verdict
```md
## Question
[The question]
## Approach
[What was tried]
## Verdict
[Answer: yes/no/partially, with evidence]
## Recommendation
[Proceed with ln-scope, try a different approach, or abandon]
```
## Traceability (mandatory — do before routing)
After the verdict, do all of these before presenting routing options:
1. Mark the spike `done` in `memory/PLAN.md` if the spike itself was tracked as a frontier item, or update the affected frontier definition if it was a proving step inside a frontier
2. Update `memory/SPEC.md` §Assumptions — set `Status` to `validated` or `invalidated` as evidence warrants, update `Confidence` if the evidence changed it, and flag implicated frontier items in `memory/PLAN.md`
3. Add any new decisions to `memory/SPEC.md` §Decisions, new assumptions to §Assumptions
4. If the verdict changes frontier or slice feasibility → update affected frontier definitions / sequencing in `memory/PLAN.md`
These are bookkeeping steps, not optional. Routing comes after.
## Routing
After traceability is complete, present these options to the user (use `tool-ask-question`):
| # | Label | Target | Why |
| --- | --------------- | ------------ | ------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | Scope a slice | `ln-scope` | Question answered — ready to define the next scoped slice |
| 2 | Spike again | `ln-spike` | New question emerged, needs another investigation |
| 3 | Revise spec | `ln-spec` | Verdict revealed the spec needs structural revision |
| 4 | Revise plan | `ln-plan` | Verdict changes what frontier items or slices are needed |
| 5 | Back to triage | `ln-consult` | Verdict changes the overall direction |
Recommended: **1** if the spike validated. If it invalidated an architectural or requirement-level assumption, prefer **3**; if it mainly changes frontier/slice feasibility, ordering, or dependencies, prefer **4**.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!