Use `analysis-agent` when engineering intent lacks desired behavior, boundaries, constraints, or completion signals. Skip requests with an accepted Engineering Brief and no-repo direct-answer work.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add machenjie/rd-skills --skill change-intake-compiler --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Change Intake Compiler?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/machenjie-change-intake-compiler)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: change-intake-compiler
description: "Use `analysis-agent` when engineering intent lacks desired behavior, boundaries, constraints, or completion signals. Skip requests with an accepted Engineering Brief and no-repo direct-answer work."
---
# change-intake-compiler
## Role
Support `analysis-agent` in separating source-backed change intent from
reversible assumptions and user-owned decisions.
## When To Use
- ambiguous request
- missing desired behavior
## Do Not Use
- accepted Engineering Brief already exists
- no-repo direct-answer mode
## Required Inputs
- request summary
- observed current behavior
## Professional Decision Rules
- Define the intent slice as the smallest independently observable unit containing current behavior, desired behavior, acceptance or completion signal, constraints, non-goals, and affected surfaces.
- Separate facts discoverable from source from choices only the user can make.
- Proceed with explicit reversible assumptions only when they cannot change public behavior, data, authorization, or domain meaning.
- Reject solution wording that hides the actual problem or success condition.
## High-Value Gotchas
- Do not turn an ambiguous request into an invented requirement.
- A source-discoverable fact is not a reason to interrupt the user.
- Make every reversible assumption explicit in the output.
## Execution Checklist
1. Reconstruct current behavior, desired behavior, acceptance or completion signal, constraints, non-goals, and affected surfaces from the request and source evidence.
2. Classify each gap as discoverable fact, reversible assumption, or user-owned choice.
3. Choose the smallest intent slice that retains every required field and whose acceptance can be observed independently.
4. Stop routing when a missing choice can change contract, data, authority, or domain meaning.
## Stop / Escalation Conditions
- Stop planning when current behavior, desired behavior, constraints, non-goals,
completion signal, authority, or affected surface is missing.
- Escalate assumptions that could change contract, data, security, migration,
rollback, user-visible behavior, or acceptance.
- Stop solution-first requests when the named implementation is not backed by an outcome, constraint, authority, and rejected simpler option.
- Stop conflict resolution when stakeholders disagree on behavior, priority, rollout, role, date, or acceptance and no decision owner or deadline is named.
- Escalate when required source channels, issue trackers, production evidence, or stakeholder context cannot be inspected through authorized, redacted, fresh read/search access.
## Output Contract
- minimal intent slice with current behavior, desired behavior, observable acceptance or completion signal, constraints, non-goals, and affected surfaces
- assumptions
- open questions
## Targeted References
| Path | Type | Load when | Do not load when | Required by | Required output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [change request](references/change-request-template.md) | template | Drafting or normalizing the durable Change Request artifact | Only readiness classification or gap triage is needed | analysis-agent | completed-contract |
| [checklist](references/checklist.md) | decision-checklist | Auditing intake readiness quickly before routing downstream | The request is blocked by a single missing authority or evidence fact | analysis-agent | checklist-result, residual-risk |
| [evidence patterns](references/evidence-patterns.md) | evidence-pattern | Closure depends on raw-input-to-field mapping, stakeholder authority, source freshness, blocking-question evidence, or proof limits | No evidence conflict, authority, or freshness issue is material | analysis-agent | evidence-record, proof-limit, residual-risk |
| [index](references/index.md) | index | competing change intake compiler references require dependency, conflict, or output-fragment selection | the change intake compiler root or a task-named reference already resolves selection | analysis-agent | reference-selection |
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!