Skill Vault · Choose a method
Find the right Skill for your task
Describe where you are stuck and get a suggested method or sequence.
Your situation and access to the Skill catalog.
Skill name /ask-espo
Your next step
Try it for yourself
You’ll need: Your situation and access to the Skill catalog.
Paste into your coding agent with the relevant project open.
This is a one-off starter for the approach. Installing the full Skill adds its complete instructions.
I am in this situation: [describe it]. Recommend the smallest Skill or sequence that fits. Explain the branch that chose it, tell me where human decisions occur, then stop.
What happens nextA recommendation explains why it fits, names your decisions, then stops.
Use it again
Add the full Skill.
The starter lets you try the approach. Installation adds the complete instructions to your AI coding tool.
Copy the setup instructionsFor Codex or Claude Code on your computer
Your next step
Ask your agent to help you install it
You’ll need: Node.js with npx, Git, and the agent you choose. A project folder where you want the Skill available.
Paste this into Codex or Claude Code with your project open. Your agent will help you review and install the package.
Review files and permissions before accepting an install. Adding a Skill does not run it.
Help me install /ask-espo from MattEspo23/skills v0.1.2 in this project.
Review the package instructions and supporting files first. Include these Skills: ask-espo.
Use the command for the agent I am using:
Add to Codex:
npx skills@latest add 'MattEspo23/skills#v0.1.2' --skill ask-espo --agent codex --copy
Add to Claude Code:
npx skills@latest add 'MattEspo23/skills#v0.1.2' --skill ask-espo --agent claude-code --copy
Show me where the files will go before making changes. Preserve existing Skills and customizations. Stop if the release, supporting Skills, or target agent cannot be verified. Do not run the Skill or change external services during setup.
After installation, explain how I can use /ask-espo and what access it needs.
What happens nextYour agent should review and add /ask-espo, then explain how to use /ask-espo. Stop if a dependency or version cannot be verified.
No additional supporting Skill is required by this package. Source version: v0.1.2.
Prefer a terminal command?
Add to Codex
npx skills@latest add 'MattEspo23/skills#v0.1.2' --skill ask-espo --agent codex --copy
Add to Claude Code
npx skills@latest add 'MattEspo23/skills#v0.1.2' --skill ask-espo --agent claude-code --copy
Installing copies the instructions into your chosen agent. It does not run the Skill or configure project tools.
Keep the package’s supporting files, LICENSE and NOTICE together with the Skill instructions.
Ask Espo recommends other Skills. Install the methods it recommends before following that route; this command installs the router only.
Full notes & source materialThe complete original text, examples and reference details.
These are the complete original notes. Planned videos and services mentioned here may not be available yet; the actions above reflect what you can use on this site now.
Describe your situation and get the Skill or sequence that fits, plus the human decisions along the way.
Watch

Skill Vault video planned · Video planned
Install
Public release v0.1.2 — install the latest source or pin the tested release.
Install latest
npx skills@latest add MattEspo23/skills --skill ask-espo
Reproducible install
npx skills@latest add 'MattEspo23/skills#v0.1.2' --skill ask-espo
Clean installs are verified for Codex and Claude Code. The installer copies editable files into the selected agent; review every Skill before giving it tool access.
This is the public, editable adapted baseline. Its deeper Espo-specific revision and Skill Vault video are planned; the released source can be installed now.
What it does
ask-espo is the router over the skills in this repo. You describe the situation you are in — an idea you cannot start, a pile of incoming bug reports, a session that has run long — and it names the skill or the sequence of skills that fits, plus where the human decisions in that sequence sit.
It recommends and stops. It does not grill, write a spec, open a file or fire the skill it just named; what you get back is the next thing to type, and you type it. It is also a hand-written map of the skills in this repo rather than a scan of what you have installed, so it will not route you over your own skills or another author's.
When to reach for it
You invoke this by typing /ask-espo — the agent won't reach for it on its own.
| Your situation | What the router gives back |
|---|---|
| An idea, and no idea where to start | The head of the main flow, and whether the build is small enough to skip the spec |
| Bugs and requests arriving from other people | The triage on-ramp, and why tickets you generated yourself don't belong on it |
| Two skills that look interchangeable | The line between them, and it is usually one concrete test rather than a matter of taste. grill-me or grill-with-docs turns on whether you are in a working directory; grill-with-docs or wayfinder turns on whether the effort fits one session |
| A long session and a decision about the context | The ordered tree over the five options at a phase boundary |
| A skill you have already picked | Nothing useful. Invoke that skill directly. |
Prerequisites
The router names skills; it does not install them. Everything it points at has to be installed for the recommendation to be actionable, and it only knows the promoted skills in this repo.
The tracker-dependent routes — triage, to-spec, to-tickets, implement — assume setup-espo-skills has already configured an issue tracker in the repo. The router will happily recommend them before that has happened.
Flows, not skills
The word the skill gives you to think with is flow: a path through the skills, not a single one. Naming your situation places you on a flow at a step, which is a different answer from "here is the skill that matches your keywords". Four kinds of route exist, and the skill itself carries them in full:
- The main flow, idea to ship. Grill, spec, tickets, implement, review, with two branches inside it: a prototype detour when a question needs runnable code to settle, and the spec-and-tickets split, which only earns its cost when the build spans more than one session.
- On-ramps, for a situation that generates work and then merges onto the main flow: incoming bug reports, something broken, or an effort too foggy and too large to hold in one session.
- Standalones, off every flow, reached for on their own terms — the prototype, the questionnaire, the merge conflict you are already sitting in.
- A vocabulary layer underneath, the two references the other skills pull in when the words rather than the process are the problem.
The phase boundary
The other idea it hands you is the phase boundary. A phase is a chunk of work inside a session — the grilling, the implementation, the QA — and the boundary between two of them is the only place the question "what do I do with this context?" belongs. Mid-phase there is nothing to decide: continue, or split what is left into subagents.
| Option | Take it when |
|---|---|
| Continue | The next phase wants this one verbatim, or you have smart zone left. It is the only move that keeps the session as a primary source, so rule it out first |
/clear | Everything behind you is disposable. Cheapest move on the board, and one-way if you were wrong |
| handoff | Something has to travel: a new harness, a new directory, a colleague, a side task forked mid-phase |
| Subagent | The task is scoped tightly enough to run with you away from the keyboard |
/compact | None of the above. The default, and it lands here often |
Two of those are routinely got wrong, which is why the router carries the order rather than the list. /handoff reads like the general bridge between windows and is not: portability is the whole of what it buys. /compact is the bottom of the tree rather than the first reach, because the four questions above it are each cheaper or more precise.
Common questions
Isn't there just a list of the skills in the right order?
People keep asking for one in the README. This skill is that list — it is what it exists for. A static table would say wayfinder → to-spec → to-tickets → implement → code-review and be wrong for most situations, because the interesting parts are the branches — is there a codebase, does the build span sessions, can this question be settled by talking. The honest cost is that the router is hand-maintained and lags the repo. /grilling and /resolving-merge-conflicts both shipped long before the router named them.
It told me half the skills aren't installed.
Some Skills are deliberately marked for explicit use in agents/openai.yaml with policy.allow_implicit_invocation: false. A harness may present only automatically discoverable Skills in its injected context, so the agent can incorrectly report an explicit-use Skill as missing. It is still installed. Type the slash command directly, or inspect the local Skill folder and its metadata to confirm what is present.
It described a skill's behaviour, and the skill doesn't do that.
Also real, also unfixed. The router answers from its own one-line summary of each skill rather than from the skill. One detailed report tracked three instances in a single session, including a recommendation to skip to-spec on the strength of the gloss "turn the thread into a spec" — to-spec/SKILL.md was never opened. In every case it verified only after the user pushed back, and never on its own initiative. Skipping to-spec there cost a real seam check, and the tickets that came out undercounted the work. When the router asserts something load-bearing about another skill, ask it to open that SKILL.md first. The same applies to questions the map does not cover at all, such as whether to use plan mode: that answer is the model's inference, not something written down here.
Why is it prose instead of a numbered checklist?
A fair complaint, filed as an open issue arguing that most of the routing is deterministic and the narrative makes it hard to scan. Nothing stops you asking for the compressed form — "just give me the sequence" gets you the sequence. What the prose is carrying is the conditional half: the branches, where a human decision is expected, and where to clear or compact between steps. A flat checklist drops exactly that.
Can it route over my own skills, or another author's?
No. Three separate proposals have asked for a router that reads your local skills/ directory and recommends from whatever is installed. ask-espo is not that. It is a map of one set, maintained by hand, and it knows nothing about skills you wrote or installed from elsewhere.
It told me to edit a SKILL.md.
That advice is often correct and rarely durable. Someone asked it how to make implement close tickets, got told to add a line to the skill, and immediately spotted the problem: npx skills update overwrites the file, and the plugin install is read-only. Put standing behaviour in your own CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md, or say it in the invocation. Prompt-level adaptations survive updates — pointing the flow at Linear instead of GitHub, or asking it which open tickets could run in parallel, are both things people do this way.
It named a skill I don't have, or missed one I do.
Check the changelog for a rename before assuming it is gone. writing-great-skills became writing-for-agents with no alias, to-prd became to-spec, and pathfinder became wayfinder. Four skills were retired outright into the skills that absorbed them: ubiquitous-language, design-an-interface, qa and request-refactor-plan. The reverse case is the router's own lag, above.
It's working if
- It ends by naming what to type and stops there, instead of starting the work itself.
- The route it gives back mentions where to clear or compact context and where you are expected to review, not just a list of skill names.
- Where two skills are close, it says which one and why the other is wrong for you.
- Any claim it makes about another skill's behaviour shows up in the trace as it reading that skill's
SKILL.md. - You recognise your own situation in what it hands back, rather than the nearest generic scenario.
Where it fits
ask-espo is a standalone router that sits over the whole set. It is never a step in a chain; it points into every chain, and it is the node the other docs pages link back to so none of them has to redraw the graph. From here you most often land on grill-with-docs, the head of the main flow, or triage, the on-ramp for work that arrived rather than work you started.
It is a secondary source over the skills it describes. Where the router and a SKILL.md disagree, the SKILL.md is right.
Try it once
Use the core behavior in one conversation before installation. The repeatable Skill package is the primary path when you want the behavior available across future work.
I am in this situation: [describe it]. Recommend the smallest Skill or sequence that fits. Explain the branch that chose it, tell me where human decisions occur, then stop.
Source & license
Released in EspoAI Skills v0.1.2; adapted from mattpocock/skills v1.2.3. The released package is skills/engineering/ask-espo/SKILL.md.
The public package is MIT-licensed and pinned here to the exact release commit. View the released EspoAI source
The adapted baseline preserves the upstream copyright, MIT permission notice, and pinned provenance. View the original pinned source
Skill package files
The full Skill text as copied from content/skill-vault/skills/ask-espo/. Supporting agent configuration files stay in that folder.
SKILL.md
---
name: ask-espo
description: Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
---
# Ask Espo
You don't remember every skill, so ask.
A **flow** is a path through the skills. Most paths run along one **main flow**, and two **on-ramps** merge onto it. Everything else is standalone, or a vocabulary layer that runs underneath.
## The main flow: idea → ship
The route most work travels. You have an idea and want it built.
1. **`/grill-with-docs`** — sharpen the idea by interview. Start here whenever you are **working in a working directory**: it's stateful, retaining what it learns in `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs. (No working directory? Use `/grill-me` — see Standalone. Both run the same `/grilling` primitive; `grill-with-docs` is the one that leaves a paper trail, which makes it the better of the two whenever a repo is there to leave it in.)
2. **Branch — can you settle every question in conversation?** If a question needs a runnable answer (state, business logic, a UI you have to see), detour through a prototype, bridged by **`/handoff`** in both directions (a prototype lives in its own directory, which is exactly what `/handoff` is for — see Phase boundaries):
- **`/handoff`** out, then open a fresh session against that file,
- **`/prototype`** to answer the question with throwaway code,
- **`/handoff`** back what you learned, and reference it from the original idea thread.
3. **Branch — is this a multi-session build?**
- **Yes** → **`/to-spec`** (turn the thread into a spec), then **`/to-tickets`** to split it into tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its **blocking edges**. On a local tracker that's one file per ticket under `.scratch/<feature>/issues/`, worked blockers-first by hand; on a real tracker the edges become native blocking links, so any ticket whose blockers are done can be grabbed — kick off **`/implement`** per ticket, **`/clear`ing context between each one**. Each ticket is self-contained, so the last one's context is disposable.
- **No** → **`/implement`** right here, in the same context window.
Either way, **`/implement`** builds each issue by driving **`/tdd`** internally — one red-green slice at a time — then closes out by running **`/code-review`**, a two-axis review (Standards + Spec) of the diff, before committing. Reach for **`/tdd`** on its own when you just want to build a concrete behaviour test-first without a full spec, and **`/code-review`** on its own whenever you want to review a branch or PR against a fixed point.
### Context hygiene
Keep steps 1–3 in **one unbroken context window** — don't compact or clear until after `/to-tickets` — so the grilling, spec, and tickets all build on the same thinking. Each `/implement` then starts fresh, working from the ticket.
The limit on this is the **[smart zone](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/smart-zone)**: the window (~150k tokens on state-of-the-art models) within which the model still reasons sharply. If a session approaches it before `/to-tickets`, don't push on degraded — `/compact` at the nearest phase boundary and carry on (see Phase boundaries).
## On-ramps
A starting situation that generates work, then merges onto the main flow.
- **Bugs and requests piling up** → **`/triage`**. It moves issues through triage roles and produces agent-ready issues, which **`/implement`** later picks up.
Triage is only for issues **you didn't create** — bug reports, incoming feature requests, anything that arrives raw. Tickets that `/to-tickets` produced are already agent-ready, so **don't triage them**.
- **Something's broken** → **`/diagnosing-bugs`**. For the hard ones: the bug that resists a first glance, the intermittent flake, the regression that crept in between two known-good states. It refuses to theorise until it has a **tight feedback loop** — one command that already goes red on *this* bug — then fixes with a regression test. Its post-mortem hands off to **`/improve-codebase-architecture`** when the real finding is that there's no good seam to lock the bug down.
- **A huge, foggy effort — a greenfield project or a huge feature build, too big for one session** → **`/wayfinder`**, the most cognitively demanding flow here. When the way from here to the destination isn't visible yet, it charts a **shared map** of **decision tickets** on the issue tracker and resolves them one at a time — producing **decisions, not deliverables** — until the fog is pushed back and the way is clear. Where **`/grill-with-docs`** sharpens an idea you can hold in one session, wayfinder is for the idea you can't — and it's slower and denser, so save it for exactly that, never a well-scoped feature.
When the map clears, **it hands off, it doesn't build**: merge onto the main flow at **`/to-spec`**, which collapses the map's linked decisions into a buildable plan, then `/to-tickets` and `/implement` as usual. Looping the map straight into `/implement` skips that collapse and throws the linked detail away — go straight to `/implement` only when the effort turned out genuinely small.
## Codebase health
Not feature work — upkeep.
- **`/improve-codebase-architecture`** — run whenever you have a spare moment to keep the codebase good for agents to operate in. It surfaces **deepening opportunities**; picking one _generates an idea_ you can take into the main flow at `/grill-with-docs`. It's the survey that finds the candidates; **`/codebase-design`** (below) is the bench you design the chosen one on.
## Vocabulary underneath
Two model-invoked references that run *beneath* the other skills — each the single source of truth for its vocabulary. Reach for them directly when the **words**, not the process, are the problem; or let the skills above pull them in.
- **`/domain-modeling`** — sharpen the project's *domain* language: challenge a fuzzy term, resolve an overloaded word ("account" doing three jobs), record a hard-to-reverse decision as an ADR. It's the active discipline `/grill-with-docs` drives to keep `CONTEXT.md` a clean glossary.
- **`/codebase-design`** — the deep-module vocabulary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) for designing a module's *shape*: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface at a clean seam. `/tdd` and `/improve-codebase-architecture` both speak it.
## Phase boundaries
A **phase** is a chunk of work inside a session — the grilling, the implementation, the QA. At the **boundary** between two of them you have five options, and picking between them is the fuzziest decision in this whole map:
- **Continue** — stay put. Costs nothing, loses nothing.
- **`/clear`** — empty the window, when nothing here matters to what's next.
- **`/handoff`** — write a portable markdown file. Narrow: only for a **new harness**, a **new directory**, a **colleague**, or forking a side task **mid-phase**. What it buys is portability.
- **Subagent** — send a tightly-scoped task to its own window and get a report back.
- **`/compact`** — compress this context and seed a fresh session with it. The **default**, at the bottom of the tree rather than the first reach.
Read [PHASE-BOUNDARIES.md](PHASE-BOUNDARIES.md) for the ordered tree — the five questions, the reasoning behind each branch, and why the primary-source cost makes **Continue** the one to rule out first. Make the decision **at** a boundary; mid-phase, continue or split the rest into subagents.
## Standalone
Off the main flow entirely.
- **`/grill-me`** — the same relentless interview as `/grill-with-docs`, but **stateless**: it saves nothing locally and builds no `CONTEXT.md`. Reach for it when you are **not working in a working directory** — sharpening a plan, a design, a piece of writing, anything with no repo under it. If you are in a working directory, use `/grill-with-docs` instead: it runs the same interview and leaves a paper trail, so it is strictly the better one.
- **`/grilling`** — the interview primitive itself: rounds, the frontier, facts are the agent's job and decisions are yours. `/grill-me` and `/grill-with-docs` are the two named ways in, and `/triage`, `/wayfinder` and `/improve-codebase-architecture` all run it internally. Reach for it directly only when you want the interview with no wrapper around it.
- **`/resolving-merge-conflicts`** — work an in-progress merge or rebase conflict hunk by hunk, resolving by **intent** traced to each side's primary source rather than by picking lines, then finish the operation. It never runs `--abort`. Standalone and off every flow: reach for it when you are already mid-conflict.
- **`/prototype`** — a small, throwaway program that answers one design question: does this state model feel right, or what should this UI look like. Throwaway is a constraint on how the code is written, not a promise to destroy it: the answer folds into the real code, and the prototype itself is kept as a **primary source** on a `prototype/<name>` branch out of main, pointed at from the implementation issue. It's the detour in step 2 of the main flow, but reach for it any time a design question is hard to settle on paper.
- **`/research`** — delegate reading legwork to a **background agent**: it investigates a question against **primary sources**, then leaves a cited Markdown file in the repo. Keep working while it reads. The file it produces is something to take *into* the main flow at `/grill-with-docs` — research feeds the thinking, it doesn't replace it.
- **`/to-questionnaire`** — when the thing blocking you isn't in your head or the codebase but in **someone else's**, this writes them a questionnaire to fill in. It's the inverse of `/grill-me`: instead of interviewing you about the subject, it interviews you about the **send** — who it's going to, what you need back — and aims the questions at the gap. What comes back is material for `/grill-with-docs` or `/to-spec`.
- **`/wizard`** — for the steps only a **human** can take: provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, clicking through an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, running a one-off migration or cutover. It generates an interactive bash script that opens each URL, captures each value, and writes it into `.env` and GitHub secrets — so the procedure stops being something you re-explain to an agent every time. Model-invoked, so the agent reaches for it the moment it hits a wall only you can pass. If the agent could just do it itself, it should; this is for where a human is genuinely in the loop.
- **`/wait-what`** — the corrective for a message that didn't land. Use it mid-conversation, inside any other skill, and the agent re-pitches what it just said with the context you were missing, in plain English, using the `CONTEXT.md` vocabulary. It works after the fact; `/grill-with-docs` is the upfront cure, because a shared language agreed early is what stops the jargon arriving at all.
- **`/teach`** — learn a concept over multiple sessions, using the current directory as a stateful workspace.
- **`/writing-for-agents`** — reference for writing documents agents consume: skills, AGENTS.md, pointed-at docs.
## Precondition
**`/setup-espo-skills`** — run before your first engineering flow to configure the issue tracker, triage labels, and doc layout the other skills assume. Custom issue trackers also work.
PHASE-BOUNDARIES.md
# Phase boundaries
A **phase** is a chunk of work inside a session — the grilling, the implementation, the QA. The definition is fuzzy on purpose: a phase ends when you think *"ok, we're done with that"*.
The **phase boundary** is the gap between two phases, and it is the only place this decision belongs. Mid-phase there is no decision to make — continue, or split the work that's left into subagents. Compacting mid-phase makes the agent lose the thread.
## The five options
| Option | What it does |
| ------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Continue** | Stay in the session. No context switch at all. |
| **`/clear`** | Empty the context window and start from nothing. |
| **`/handoff`** | Write a portable markdown file and seed a session anywhere with it. |
| **Subagent** | Send the task to its own context window and get a report back. |
| **`/compact`** | Compress this context and seed a fresh session with the summary. |
## The tree
Work top to bottom at the boundary. The first **yes** wins.
**1. Can you continue in this session?** Two things make the answer yes: the next phase needs this phase as a **primary source**, or you have enough [smart zone](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/smart-zone) left (~150k tokens) for the next phase to fit. Grilling → implementation is the standard yes: the implementation wants the reasoning verbatim, not a summary of it. Continue costs nothing and loses nothing, so rule it out before anything else.
**2. Is the context irrelevant to what comes next?** Is everything in this session — the exploration, the decisions, the dead ends — disposable? If so, **`/clear`**. It is the cheapest move on the board: it takes no time and hands back the whole window. `/clear` also isn't terminal — the old session stays resumable.
The cost of getting this wrong is one-way. Clear a *relevant* context and you lose the **why** behind what you built, and no amount of reading the diff back gets it returned.
**3. Do you need to hand off?** `/handoff` is narrow. You need it only when you are:
- swapping to a **new harness** (Claude → Codex),
- moving to a **new directory** or repo,
- sending the work to a **colleague**,
- or forking a side task you found **mid-phase** without derailing what you're doing.
That list is the whole clause. What `/handoff` buys is **portability** — a file that travels. If nothing is travelling, you don't need it.
**4. Can the task be done AFK?** Is it scoped tightly enough to run with you away from the keyboard, no steering? Then send it to a **subagent** and leave this session untouched. Automated review is the standard case: the agent reads the diff and reports, and you aren't needed while it does.
**5. Otherwise, `/compact`.** Relevant context, same harness, same directory, and you need to stay in the loop — this is where the tree lands, and it lands here often. Pass it an instruction (`/compact we're going to QA this area`) so the summary keeps what the next phase needs.
`/compact` is the **default, not the first reach**. It sits at the bottom because the four questions above it are all cheaper or more precise. The failure mode when people start here is a fresh session that is confidently wrong about a decision the summary flattened.
## Primary and secondary sources
Every move except **Continue** turns a **primary source** into a **secondary source** — the session as it happened, replaced by a summary of it. The trade is always the same shape:
| Source | Information | Noise | Room to move |
| --------------------------------- | ----------- | ----- | ------------ |
| Primary (Continue) | Full | Lots | Little |
| Secondary (`/compact`, `/handoff`) | Lossy | Less | Lots |
This is why question 1 comes first. You only pay the lossiness when staying costs more than it saves.
## These are judgement calls
The questions are not objective — each has taste in it, and the same boundary can go two ways on two days. The value is in asking them **in order**, at the boundary rather than in the middle of the work.
Keep going