Brief a connection request with the site facts and the studies the user already has. Use when the user mentions grid connection, interconnection, connect a site, queue brief, or asks for a connection brief. Energy and utilities operations skill by Yasir Jilani.
Scanned 9/30/2026
npx -y skills add SYasJ/claude-business-skills --skill grid-connection-brief --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Grid Connection Brief?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/syasj-grid-connection-brief)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: grid-connection-brief
description: "Brief a connection request with the site facts and the studies the user already has. Use when the user mentions grid connection, interconnection, connect a site, queue brief, or asks for a connection brief. Energy and utilities operations skill by Yasir Jilani."
license: MIT
compatibility: Agent Skills standard. No network access, extra packages, or credentials required.
metadata:
author: Yasir Jilani
version: "1.0.0"
domain: energy
---
<!-- GENERATED FILE - edits here are overwritten by scripts/generate.py.
Edit the 'grid-connection-brief' entry in source/, then run:
python3 scripts/generate.py && python3 scripts/validate.py
See CONTRIBUTING.md. -->
# Grid Connection Brief
Brief a connection request with the site facts and the studies the user already has.
## When to use this skill
Use this skill when the user:
- grid connection
- interconnection
- connect a site
- queue brief
## When not to use this skill
- The user wants a different domain's specialist skill.
- The task requires a licensed professional to decide, and the user only needs a referral note rather than a draft.
- The request asks you to deceive, evade a control, or hide material facts.
## Professional boundary
Operational energy advice is not a permit and not a safety case. Do not bypass lockout, isolation, or regulatory limits.
## Operating boundaries
- Use only information the user provides or files they explicitly ask you to read. Do not invent metrics, laws, citations, prices, credentials, or clinical facts.
- Do not ask for passwords, API keys, tokens, seed phrases, one-time codes, or payment card data.
- Do not send data to an external service, install packages, or add network calls as part of this skill.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and recommendations. If a required input is missing, state the assumption or ask one focused question.
- If the user asks you to deceive a person, evade a control, forge a record, or cause harm, stop. Offer a legitimate alternative.
- Work product that affects money, employment, health, safety, or legal rights is a draft for a qualified human to review before it is used.
## Inputs to collect
- The site
- The size they are requesting
- Studies in hand
- The queue status they were given
## Workflow
### 1. Step 1
State the site and the size.
### 2. Step 2
List studies they have.
### 3. Step 3
A missing study is a gap.
### 4. Step 4
Use the queue status they were given, not a guessed date.
### 5. Step 5
Do not promise interconnection.
### 6. Step 6
Name the owner of the next filing.
## Output
Deliver a **connection brief**.
- Purpose of this connection brief, in two sentences.
- Facts the user supplied, listed separately from assumptions.
- The work itself, in the structure the workflow names.
- Open questions, risks, and the single next action with an owner.
- What a qualified reviewer still needs to confirm, if the domain is regulated.
## Quality bar
- Every number, date, name, and citation came from the user or is marked as an assumption.
- The artifact can be used without reading this skill again.
- Recommendations are specific enough that someone could accept or reject them.
- Boundaries were respected: no credentials requested, no unsupported professional claim, no deception.
## Example
### Scenario
A site in Grand Prairie is requesting 5 MW. The utility status email says application received. A brief promises connection in March. The only study in the folder is a draft one-line, marked draft.
### Example data
```text
site: east of Grande Prairie, their file name Site 4
size requested: 5 MW
status email: application received, 8 Sep 2026
studies in folder: one-line, marked draft
promised in the brief: connected March 2027
owner of the next filing: Devon Hale
```
### Example outcome
**Connection brief**
Site 4, 5 MW requested. Status: application received, 8 September. That is the status. March is not in the email. It comes out.
Study in the folder: a draft one-line. It is not a completed study.
No interconnection is promised.
Next filing owner: Devon. He does not send the March date.
## Anti-patterns
- A guessed in-service date
- A study marked done that is not in the file
- A promise of connection
## Related skills
- `tariff-change-note`
- `project-charter`
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!