Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, Skills and MCP

develop-spike-summary

Documents the results of a completed technical or design spike, capturing the original question, approach, evidence-backed findings, and a clear proceed-or-not recommendation so the team does not re-litigate the exploration. Use once a time-boxed investigation has concluded. For the architecture decision the spike informs, use develop-adr instead; for research-based exploration, use discover-interview-synthesis.

代码质量与审查715skills/develop-spike-summary/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent checks the Skill for safety first and installs it only after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/develop-spike-summary/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Spike Summary

A spike summary documents the results of a time-boxed exploration - a focused investigation to reduce uncertainty before committing to implementation. Spikes answer specific questions like "Can we integrate with this API?" or "Is this technology viable for our use case?" The summary captures findings so the team can make informed decisions without the spike participants needing to repeat explanations.

When to Use

  • After completing a time-boxed technical exploration
  • When evaluating technology choices or vendor options
  • After proof-of-concept work that needs to inform team decisions
  • When investigating feasibility of a proposed solution
  • Before committing engineering resources to a new approach

When NOT to Use

  • You are recording the resulting architecture decision itself -> use develop-adr; the spike informs, the ADR decides
  • The exploration was user research, not technical or design feasibility -> use discover-interview-synthesis
  • You want to propose the solution the spike pointed to -> use develop-solution-brief
  • The spike has not happened yet: this skill documents results; time-box and run the exploration first

Instructions

When asked to document a spike, follow these steps:

  1. State the Question Clearly Articulate the specific question the spike was designed to answer. Good spike questions are focused and answerable with the time-box available. If the question evolved during the spike, document both the original and final versions.

  2. Define the Time-Box Document the time allocated (e.g., 3 days) and actual time spent. If the spike exceeded its time-box, explain why and note any remaining work.

  3. Describe the Approach Explain what was tried, in what order, and why. This helps future readers understand the methodology and whether alternative approaches were considered.

  4. Present Findings with Evidence Document what was learned, supported by concrete evidence - code samples, performance benchmarks, screenshots, or API responses. Distinguish between verified findings and hypotheses that need more testing.

  5. Make a Clear Recommendation Answer the original question directly: proceed, do not proceed, or proceed with conditions. Avoid hedging - the team needs actionable guidance.

  6. Document Artifacts Link to any code, prototypes, diagrams, or documentation created during the spike. These artifacts often have ongoing value beyond the summary.

  7. Capture Open Questions Note what the spike didn't answer and what additional investigation might be needed.

Output Format

Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md to structure the output. A complete spike summary fills every template section: Overview; Background; Approach; Findings; Recommendation; Artifacts; Open Questions; and Follow-up Items.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

  • Original question is clearly stated
  • Time-box is documented (allocated vs. actual)
  • Findings are supported by evidence, not just opinions
  • Recommendation directly answers the question
  • Artifacts (code, diagrams) are linked or attached
  • Open questions identify remaining unknowns

Examples

See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed example.

Similar Skills

claude-api
anthropics/skills180k

claude-api

Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model migration. TRIGGER — read BEFORE opening the target file; don't skip because it "looks like a one-liner" — whenever: the prompt names Claude/Anthropic in any form (Claude, Anthropic, Fable, Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, `anthropic`, `@anthropic-ai`, `claude-*`, `us.anthropic.*`, `[1m]`); the user asks about an LLM (pricing/model choice/limits/caching) — never answer from memory; OR the task is LLM-shaped with provider unstated (agent/MCP/tool-definition/multi-agent/RAG/LLM-judge/computer-use; generate/summarize/extract/classify/rewrite/converse over NL; debugging refusals/cutoffs/streaming/tool-calls/tokens). SKIP only when another provider is being worked on (overrides all triggers): OpenAI/GPT/Gemini/Llama/Mistral/Cohere/Ollama named in the query; OR `grep -rE 'openai|langchain_openai|google.generativeai|genai|mistralai|cohere|ollama'` over the project hits (run this grep FIRST if no provider named — don't Read the file).

Code quality & review

ponytail-review
DietrichGebert/ponytail158k

ponytail-review

Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last commit", "review my PR", "is this over-engineered", /ponytail-review.

Code quality & review

code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-review-and-quality

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.

Code quality & review

documentation-and-adrs
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

documentation-and-adrs

Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

Code quality & review

code-simplification
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-simplification

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

Code quality & review

understand
Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k

understand

Analyze a codebase to produce an interactive knowledge graph for understanding architecture, components, and relationships

Code quality & review