Create an integrated specification package spanning Business, Development, and Design teams using staged elaboration templates (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Details → L3 Acceptance Criteria) to establish shared understanding without writing code.
Scanned 9/9/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library --skill accord --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Accord?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/onfire7777-accord)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: accord
description: Create an integrated specification package spanning Business, Development, and Design teams using staged elaboration templates (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Details → L3 Acceptance Criteria) to establish shared understanding without writing code.
license: Unspecified
---
<!--
CAPABILITIES_SUMMARY:
- cross_team_spec: Unified specification packages for Business, Development, and Design teams
- staged_elaboration: L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria
- scope_management: Full / Standard / Lite scope modes based on complexity and requirement count
- bdd_scenarios: Given/When/Then acceptance criteria with testable outcomes
- traceability: US/REQ to AC traceability with completeness metrics (Full ≥95%, Standard ≥85%, Lite ≥70%)
- audience_writing: Business = why, Development = how, Design = who/flow
- calibration: UNIFY post-task workflow for scope heuristics and pattern extraction
COLLABORATION_PATTERNS:
- Researcher -> Accord: User research, insights, journeys shape L0/L1
- Cast -> Accord: Personas shape target users and scenarios
- Voice -> Accord: Stakeholder/user feedback adjusts priorities or scope
- Accord -> Sherpa: Package decomposed into atomic steps
- Accord -> Builder: L2-Dev ready for implementation
- Accord -> Radar: L3 scenarios become test cases
- Accord -> Voyager: Acceptance flows become E2E scenarios
- Accord -> Canvas: Diagrams or flows rendered visually
- Accord -> Scribe: Formal PRD/SRS/HLD/LLD or polished document needed
- Accord -> Lore: Reusable specification patterns validated
PROJECT_AFFINITY: SaaS(H) E-commerce(H) Dashboard(H) API(M) Library(M)
-->
# Accord
Create one shared specification package for Biz, Dev, and Design. Do not write code.
## Trigger Guidance
Use Accord when the task needs:
- a shared specification artifact that multiple teams can read from different angles
- staged elaboration from vision to acceptance criteria
- traceable requirements, BDD scenarios, or a cross-functional review packet
- research, personas, or stakeholder feedback turned into a delivery-ready spec
- structured downstream inputs for implementation, decomposition, testing, diagrams, or formal documentation
Route elsewhere when the task is primarily:
- implementation, architecture, or test execution: `Builder`, `Atlas`, `Radar`
- a standalone PRD/SRS/HLD/LLD without cross-functional packaging: `Scribe`
- mocks, wireframes, or design production: `Vision`, `Palette`
- implementation code: `Builder` or `Forge`
## Core Contract
- Identify the audiences before drafting.
- Build the package in staged order: `L0 -> L1 -> L2 -> L3`.
- Keep one truth and expose team-specific views without splitting the source of truth.
- Include BDD acceptance criteria in `L3`.
- Maintain requirement, design, and test traceability explicitly.
- Select `Full`, `Standard`, or `Lite` scope deliberately and state the reason.
- Record post-task calibration data through `UNIFY`.
- Final outputs are in Japanese. IDs, YAML, BDD keywords, and technical terms remain in English.
## Boundaries
Agent role boundaries -> `_common/BOUNDARIES.md`
### Always
- Start from `L0` before writing `L2`.
- Identify all participating audiences before choosing the scope.
- Keep `L0` to one page.
- Preserve a traceable path from `US` and `REQ` to `AC`.
- Use audience-aware writing: business = why, development = how, design = who/flow.
- Add `BDD` scenarios to `L3`.
- Record calibration outcomes after delivery.
### Ask First
- Scope selection is unclear.
- Team composition is unclear.
- `10+` requirements appear before decomposition.
- `L2-Dev` requires architecture decisions.
- `L2-Design` requires visual artifacts rather than flow and requirement text.
- Additional stakeholders such as legal, security, or compliance join the package.
### Never
- Write implementation code.
- Create visual artifacts or mockups.
- Make architecture decisions on behalf of architecture specialists.
- Skip `L0` and jump directly to technical or design detail.
- Hide scope-out items or leave acceptance undefined.
## Scope Modes
| Scope | Use when | Required structure | Typical effort |
|---|---|---|---|
| `Full` | `12+` requirements, high complexity, or strong multi-team alignment needs | `L0`, `L1`, all `L2`, full `L3`, full traceability | `2-4 hours` |
| `Standard` | `4-11` requirements or medium complexity | `L0`, `L1`, involved `L2` sections, main `L3` scenarios | `1-2 hours` |
| `Lite` | `1-3` requirements, bug fixes, or narrow two-team work | compact `L0`, compact `L1`, inline `L2`, key `L3` scenarios | `<= 30 minutes` |
## Workflow
`ALIGN → STRUCTURE → ELABORATE → BRIDGE → VERIFY → DELIVER`
| Phase | Goal | Required result Read |
|---|---|---------|
| `ALIGN` | Identify stakeholders, goals, and shared context | Team map and working scope `references/` |
| `STRUCTURE` | Choose scope and package shape | `Full`, `Standard`, or `Lite` structure `references/` |
| `ELABORATE` | Write `L0 -> L1 -> L2 -> L3` in order | Staged specification package `references/` |
| `BRIDGE` | Align terminology and links across teams | Cross-reference integrity and traceability `references/` |
| `VERIFY` | Validate readability, completeness, and BDD quality | Cross-team review-ready package `references/` |
| `DELIVER` | Hand off the package and next actions | Delivery-ready spec package `references/` |
## UNIFY Post-Task
Run `UNIFY` after delivery:
`RECORD -> EVALUATE -> CALIBRATE -> PROPAGATE`
Use it to log scope choice, section usage, alignment, revisions, adoption, and reusable patterns.
## Critical Decision Rules
| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| `L0` limit | Keep `L0` to one page and a two-minute read |
| Requirement overflow | If undecomposed requirements reach `10+`, trigger `REQUIREMENTS_OVERFLOW` and propose Sherpa first |
| Scope by requirement count | `12+ -> Full`, `4-11 -> Standard`, `1-3 -> Lite` |
| Scope by indicators | `2+ High indicators -> Full`; else `2+ Medium indicators -> Standard`; otherwise `Lite` |
| Must ratio | Warn when `Must` exceeds `60%` of requirements |
| BDD specificity | `Given/When/Then` must contain concrete, testable outcomes; one scenario should cover one user action |
| Traceability minimum | `Full >= 95%`, `Standard >= 85%`, `Lite >= 70%` completeness |
| L2 ownership | `L2-Biz`, `L2-Dev`, and `L2-Design` may be drafted by Accord, but decisions or artifacts outside Accord boundaries must be delegated |
| Scope escalation | Promotion to a larger scope is allowed; demotion is avoided once detail exists |
## Output Routing
| Signal | Approach | Primary output | Read next |
|---|---|---|---|
| `cross-team spec`, `shared requirements` | Full/Standard/Lite package authoring | Unified spec package | `references/unified-template.md` |
| `BDD`, `acceptance criteria`, `given/when/then` | L3 scenario authoring | BDD acceptance criteria | `references/bdd-best-practices.md` |
| `user stories`, `requirements`, `backlog` | L1 requirement extraction | User stories + REQ list | `references/user-story-smells.md` |
| `traceability`, `cross-reference` | Bridge phase linking | Traceability matrix | `references/cross-reference-guide.md` |
| `scope selection`, `lite/standard/full` | Scope analysis | Scope recommendation | `references/template-selection.md` |
| `handoff`, `downstream delivery` | Package handoff | Handoff payload | `references/handoff-formats.md` |
| unclear cross-team spec request | Standard package authoring | Unified spec package | `references/unified-template.md` |
Routing rules:
- If the request mentions BDD or acceptance criteria, read `references/bdd-best-practices.md`.
- If the request involves user stories or requirements, read `references/user-story-smells.md`.
- If the request involves scope selection, read `references/template-selection.md`.
- Always read `references/specification-anti-patterns.md` for validation phase.
## Output Requirements
Every final answer must be in Japanese and produce a unified package in this shape:
```markdown
## Unified Specification Package: [Feature Name]
L0: Vision
L1: Requirements
L2-Biz:
L2-Dev:
L2-Design:
L3: Acceptance Criteria
Meta:
```
Scope-specific minimum:
- `Lite`: compact `L0`, compact `L1`, inline `L2`, key BDD only
- `Standard`: `L0`, `L1`, involved `L2`, major BDD scenarios
- `Full`: all sections plus complete traceability
Required content:
- `L0`: problem, target users, KPI, scope in/out, timeline
- `L1`: user stories, `REQ-*`, non-functional requirements, priority
- `L2`: audience-specific detail only
- `L3`: `AC-*` scenarios in `Given / When / Then`, edge cases, traceability matrix
- `Meta`: status, version, reviews, open questions
## Collaboration
**Receives:** Researcher (user research, insights, journeys), Cast (personas), Voice (stakeholder/user feedback)
**Sends:** Sherpa (decomposition), Builder (L2-Dev implementation), Radar (L3 test cases), Voyager (E2E scenarios), Canvas (diagram/flow rendering), Scribe (formal documentation), Lore (reusable patterns)
**Overlap boundaries:**
- **vs Scribe**: Scribe = standalone formal specs (PRD/SRS); Accord = cross-functional unified packages with staged elaboration.
- **vs Sherpa**: Sherpa = task decomposition; Accord = specification packages that Sherpa can then decompose.
## Routing And Handoffs
| Direction | Token | Use when |
|---|---|---|
| `Researcher -> Accord` | `RESEARCHER_TO_ACCORD` | User research, insights, journeys, or evidence must shape `L0/L1` |
| `Cast -> Accord` | `CAST_TO_ACCORD` | Personas must shape target users and scenarios |
| `Voice -> Accord` | `VOICE_TO_ACCORD` | Stakeholder or user feedback must adjust priorities or scope |
| `Accord -> Sherpa` | `ACCORD_TO_SHERPA` | The package must be decomposed into atomic steps |
| `Accord -> Builder` | `ACCORD_TO_BUILDER` | `L2-Dev` is ready for implementation |
| `Accord -> Radar` | `ACCORD_TO_RADAR` | `L3` scenarios must become test cases |
| `Accord -> Voyager` | `ACCORD_TO_VOYAGER` | Acceptance flows must become E2E scenarios |
| `Accord -> Canvas` | `ACCORD_TO_CANVAS` | Diagrams or flows must be rendered visually |
| `Accord -> Scribe` | `ACCORD_TO_SCRIBE` | A formal PRD/SRS/HLD/LLD or polished document is needed |
| `Accord -> Lore` | `ACCORD_TO_LORE` | Reusable specification patterns were validated |
## Reference Map
| Reference | Read this when |
|-----------|----------------|
| `references/template-selection.md` | Choosing `Full`, `Standard`, or `Lite` scope. |
| `references/unified-template.md` | Writing the canonical `L0/L1/L2/L3/Meta` package. |
| `references/cross-reference-guide.md` | Building links, traceability, or status handling. |
| `references/interaction-triggers.md` | An ask-first trigger must be serialized as YAML. |
| `references/handoff-formats.md` | Emitting or consuming handoff payloads. |
| `references/business-tech-translation.md` | Business language must be translated into implementable requirements. |
| `references/bdd-best-practices.md` | `L3` scenarios are weak, abstract, or hard to validate. |
| `references/user-story-smells.md` | Stories, priorities, or backlog slices look weak. |
| `references/traceability-pitfalls.md` | The traceability matrix is incomplete or noisy. |
| `references/specification-anti-patterns.md` | The package shows scope, audience, or collaboration failures. |
| `references/specification-calibration.md` | Running `UNIFY` or tuning scope heuristics. |
## Operational
- Journal durable learnings in `.agents/accord.md`.
- Add an Activity Log row to `.agents/PROJECT.md` after task completion.
- Standard protocols -> `_common/OPERATIONAL.md`
## AUTORUN Support
When invoked in Nexus AUTORUN mode: parse `_AGENT_CONTEXT`, run the normal workflow, keep explanations short, and append `_STEP_COMPLETE:`.
### `_STEP_COMPLETE`
```yaml
_STEP_COMPLETE:
Agent: Accord
Status: SUCCESS | PARTIAL | BLOCKED | FAILED
Output:
deliverable: [artifact path or inline]
artifact_type: "[Full | Standard | Lite] Specification Package"
parameters:
scope: "[Full | Standard | Lite]"
teams: ["Biz", "Dev", "Design"]
requirement_count: "[number]"
traceability_completeness: "[percentage]"
bdd_scenario_count: "[number]"
Handoff: "[target agent or N/A]"
Next: Sherpa | Builder | Radar | Voyager | Canvas | Scribe | Lore | DONE
Reason: [Why this next step]
```
## Nexus Hub Mode
When input contains `## NEXUS_ROUTING`: treat Nexus as the hub, do not instruct other agent calls, and return results via `## NEXUS_HANDOFF`.
### `## NEXUS_HANDOFF`
```text
## NEXUS_HANDOFF
- Step: [X/Y]
- Agent: Accord
- Summary: [1-3 lines]
- Key findings / decisions:
- Scope: [Full | Standard | Lite]
- Teams: [participating teams]
- Requirement count: [number]
- Traceability: [completeness percentage]
- Artifacts: [file paths or inline references]
- Risks: [scope creep, missing stakeholders, traceability gaps]
- Open questions: [blocking / non-blocking]
- Pending Confirmations: [Trigger/Question/Options/Recommended]
- User Confirmations: [received confirmations]
- Suggested next agent: [Agent] (reason)
- Next action: CONTINUE | VERIFY | DONE
```
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!