fp-brief
First-principles briefing from technical documents. Use when: understanding why decisions were made, onboarding to feature reasoning, reviewing decision chains, explaining doc from first principles. Not for: PM/CTO summary (use project-brief), pre-doc analysis (use feasibility-study), code explanation (use codex-explain). Output: structured reasoning chain with sensitivity analysis.
Works with
---
name: fp-brief
description: First-principles briefing from technical documents. Use when: understanding why decisions were made, onboarding to feature reasoning, reviewing decision chains, explaining doc from first principles. Not for: PM/CTO summary (use project-brief), pre-doc analysis (use feasibility-study), code explanation (use codex-explain). Output: structured reasoning chain with sensitivity analysis.
license: MIT
---
# First-Principles Briefing Skill
## Trigger
- Keywords: first principles, fp brief, why was this decided, reasoning chain, decision sensitivity, explain decisions, assumption analysis, onboarding brief
## When NOT to Use
| Scenario | Alternative |
|----------|------------|
| PM/CTO executive summary (strip technical details) | `/project-brief` |
| Pre-doc feasibility analysis (before writing spec) | `/feasibility-study` |
| Code explanation at function/file level | `/codex-explain` |
| Code architecture overview | `/code-explore` |
| Simple document summary | Ask Claude directly |
## Command Signature
```
/fp-brief <doc-path> [--depth brief|normal|deep] [--verify off|codex] [--output <path>] [--no-save]
```
| Flag | Default | Description |
|------|---------|-------------|
| `<doc-path>` | Required | Source markdown document path |
| `--depth` | `normal` | Output detail level |
| `--verify` | `off` | Independent Codex reasoning verification |
| `--output` | Same dir, `-fp-brief.md` suffix | Custom output path |
| `--no-save` | false | Print to stdout instead of file |
## Workflow
```mermaid
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant S as /fp-brief
participant D as Source Doc
participant O as Output File
participant X as Codex (optional)
U->>S: /fp-brief <doc-path> [--depth] [--verify]
Note over S: Phase 1: Input Resolution
S->>S: Validate path (repo boundary)
S->>D: Read source document
S->>S: Redaction scan (fail-safe)
S->>S: Auto-detect format (hybrid)
Note over S: Phase 2: First-Principles Extraction
S->>S: Extract Root Problem (5-Why)
S->>S: Build Assumptions Register
S->>S: Build Reasoning Chain
S->>S: Build Alternative Rejection Log
S->>S: Build Decision Sensitivity
S->>S: Identify Open Unknowns
Note over S: Phase 3: Output Assembly
S->>O: Write *-fp-brief.md
alt --verify codex
S->>X: Independent reasoning verification
X-->>S: Verification Delta
S->>O: Append Verification Delta
end
S-->>U: Report complete
```
### Phase 1: Input Resolution
1. **Path validation**: Normalize, reject `..` traversal, enforce repo boundary
2. **Read source document**
3. **Redaction scan**: High-confidence secret patterns → abort; medium → mask `[REDACTED]`
4. **Format auto-detection**: See `references/detection-rules.md`
5. **Select extraction template** based on detected format
### Phase 2: First-Principles Extraction
See `references/extraction-guide.md` for section-by-section heuristics.
| Section | Core Question |
|---------|--------------|
| Root Problem | What fundamental truth makes this problem unavoidable? |
| Assumptions Register | What are we taking for granted, and why? |
| Reasoning Chain | How does each decision trace back to a principle? |
| Alternative Rejection Log | Why do other approaches violate our principles? |
| Decision Sensitivity | If assumption X breaks, which decisions collapse? |
| Open Unknowns | What don't we know, and what should we find out? |
For long documents (>500 lines): split by `##` headings, extract per-section, merge + dedup.
### Phase 3: Output Assembly
1. Apply depth filter (section inclusion matrix)
2. Apply source citations (reference source doc section headings)
3. Apply Evidence Insufficient Rule — never fabricate content for thin sections
4. Write output file (or stdout if `--no-save`)
5. If `--verify codex`: dispatch verification per `references/codex-verify-prompt.md`
## Depth Levels
| Level | Description | Sections Included |
|-------|-------------|-------------------|
| brief | Core reasoning only (~500 words max) | Root Problem (full), Assumptions (top 3), Reasoning Chain (key decisions), Sensitivity (top 3) |
| normal | Full reasoning chain (~1500 words max) | All 6 sections with citations |
| deep | Full chain + analysis (~2500 words max) | All 6 sections + challenge questions, evidence ratings, counterfactual analysis, risk-weighted unknowns |
Verification Delta (section 7) appears only when `--verify codex` is used, at any depth level.
**Length policy**: These are upper bounds, not targets. If source doc is thin, output will be shorter. The Evidence Insufficient Rule applies: `[Evidence insufficient — source doc lacks data for this section]`.
## Output
See `references/output-template.md` for full template.
```markdown
# First-Principles Briefing: <title>
> Source: <path> | Depth: <level> | Format: <type> | Generated: <timestamp>
## 1. Root Problem
## 2. Assumptions Register
## 3. Reasoning Chain
## 4. Alternative Rejection Log
## 5. Decision Sensitivity
## 6. Open Unknowns
## 7. Verification Delta (optional)
```
### Save Behavior
| Condition | Output Path |
|-----------|------------|
| Default | Same directory as source, `-fp-brief.md` suffix |
| `--output <path>` | Specified path |
| `--no-save` | stdout only, no file written |
Example: `docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md` → `docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec-fp-brief.md`
## Verification
- [ ] Input path validated (repo boundary enforced)
- [ ] Secret redaction scan executed
- [ ] Format auto-detection result shown in output header
- [ ] Each Reasoning Chain decision cites source section (`Source: §<ref>`)
- [ ] Each Assumptions Register entry has confidence level
- [ ] Decision Sensitivity maps assumptions to affected decisions
- [ ] Evidence Insufficient markers used where source data is thin
- [ ] Output length within depth-level upper bound
- [ ] If `--verify codex`: Codex researched independently (per codex-invocation rules)
## References
- Output template: `references/output-template.md`
- Detection rules: `references/detection-rules.md`
- Extraction guide: `references/extraction-guide.md`
- Codex verification: `references/codex-verify-prompt.md`
## Examples
```
Input: /fp-brief docs/features/seek-verdict/2-tech-spec.md
Action: Read spec → detect tech-spec → extract 6 sections → write 2-tech-spec-fp-brief.md
Input: /fp-brief docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md --depth brief
Action: Read spec → extract Root Problem + top assumptions + key decisions + top sensitivity → brief output
Input: /fp-brief docs/features/auth/2-tech-spec.md --depth deep --verify codex
Action: Read spec → full extraction → Codex independent verification → write with Verification Delta
Input: /fp-brief notes/design-decisions.md --no-save
Action: Read doc → detect unknown format → generic extraction → print to stdout
```More Project Management skills
firecrawl-build-onboarding
firecrawl/skills
Get Firecrawl credentials and SDK setup into a project. Use when an application needs `FIRECRAWL_API_KEY`, when an agent should add Firecrawl to `.env`, when the user wants to authenticate Firecrawl for app code, or when choosing the first SDK and docs for a new Firecrawl integration. This skill includes its own browser auth flow, so it does not depend on the website onboarding skill.
email-sequence
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to create or optimize an email sequence, drip campaign, automated email flow, or lifecycle email program. Also use when the user mentions "email sequence," "drip campaign," "nurture sequence," "onboarding emails," "welcome sequence," "re-engagement emails," "email automation," "lifecycle emails," "trigger-based emails," "email funnel," "email workflow," "what emails should I send," "welcome series," or "email cadence." Use this for any multi-email automated flow. For cold outreach emails, see cold-email. For in-app onboarding, see onboarding-cro.
onboard
pbakaus/impeccable
Designs and improves onboarding flows, empty states, and first-run experiences to help users reach value quickly. Use when the user mentions onboarding, first-time users, empty states, activation, getting started, or new user flows.

