Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计未展示

ring%3apre-dev-feature-mapRing%3apre 开发功能图

Agent Skill

ring%3apre-dev-feature-map 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

906

周安装

37

GitHub Stars

180

下载量

293
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ring%3apre-dev-feature-map(Ring%3apre 开发功能图)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring
仓库路径:skills/ring%3Apre-dev-feature-map
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:pre-dev-feature-map
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:pre-dev-feature-map

简介

ring%3apre-dev-feature-map 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。

  • 它适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中根据任务需求定位相关内容。
  • 可通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,具体能力需参考原始 README。
  • 安装前建议确认权限边界和维护状态,防范不必要的系统调用。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Feature Map Creation - Understanding the Feature Landscape

Foundational Principle

Feature relationships and boundaries must be mapped before architectural decisions.

Jumping from PRD to TRD without mapping creates:

  • Architectures that don't match feature interaction patterns
  • Missing integration points discovered late
  • Poor module boundaries that cross feature concerns

The Feature Map answers: How do features relate, group, and interact at a business level? The Feature Map never answers: How we'll technically implement those features (that's TRD).

Mandatory Workflow

PhaseActivities
1. Feature AnalysisLoad approved PRD (Gate 1) and ux-criteria.md; extract all features; identify user journeys; map feature interactions and dependencies
2. Feature MappingCategorize (Core/Supporting/Enhancement/Integration); group into domains; map user journeys; identify integration points; define boundaries; visualize relationships; prioritize by value
3. Gate 2 ValidationAll PRD features mapped; categories defined; domains logical; journeys complete; integration points identified; boundaries clear; priorities support phased delivery; no technical details
4. UX DesignDispatch product-designer to create detailed user flows (Mermaid) and wireframe specifications (YAML)

Explicit Rules

✅ DO Include

Feature list (from PRD), categories (Core/Supporting/Enhancement/Integration), domain groupings (business areas), user journey maps, feature interactions, integration points, feature boundaries, priority levels, scope visualization

❌ NEVER Include

Technical architecture/components, technology choices/frameworks, database schemas/API specs, implementation approaches, infrastructure/deployment, code structure, protocols/data formats

Categorization Rules

  • Core: Must have for MVP, blocks other features
  • Supporting: Enables core features, medium priority
  • Enhancement: Improves existing features, nice-to-have
  • Integration: Connects to external systems

Domain Grouping Rules

  • Group by business capability (not technical layer)
  • Each domain = cohesive related features
  • Minimize cross-domain dependencies
  • Name by business function (User Management, Payment Processing)

Rationalization Table

ExcuseReality
"Feature relationships are obvious"Obvious to you ≠ documented for team. Map them.
"We can figure out groupings during TRD"TRD architecture follows feature structure. Define it first.
"This feels like extra work"Skipping this causes rework when architecture mismatches features.
"The PRD already has this info"PRD lists features; map shows relationships. Different views.
"I'll just mention the components"Components are technical (TRD). This is business groupings only.
"User journeys are in the PRD"PRD has stories; map shows cross-feature flows. Different levels.
"Integration points are technical"Points WHERE features interact = business. HOW = technical (TRD).
"Priorities can be set later"Priority affects architecture decisions. Set them before TRD.
"Boundaries will be clear in code"Code structure follows feature boundaries. Define them first.
"This is just a simple feature"Even simple features have interactions. Map them.

Red Flags - STOP

If you catch yourself writing any of these in a Feature Map, STOP:

  • Technology names (APIs, databases, frameworks)
  • Component names (AuthService, PaymentProcessor)
  • Technical terms (microservices, endpoints, schemas)
  • Implementation details (how data flows technically)
  • Architecture diagrams (system components)
  • Code organization (packages, modules, files)
  • Protocol specifications (REST, GraphQL, gRPC)

When you catch yourself: Remove the technical detail. Focus on WHAT features do and HOW they relate at a business level.

Gate 2 Validation Checklist

CategoryRequirements
Feature CompletenessAll PRD features included; clear descriptions; categories assigned; none missing
Grouping ClarityDomains logically cohesive; clear boundaries; cross-domain deps minimized; business function names
Journey MappingPrimary journeys documented (start to finish); features touched shown; happy/error paths; handoffs identified
Integration PointsAll interactions identified; data/event exchange points marked; directional deps clear; circular deps resolved
Priority & PhasingMVP features identified; rationale documented; incremental value delivery; deps don't block MVP

Gate Result: ✅ PASS → UX Design → TRD | ⚠️ CONDITIONAL (clarify boundaries) | ❌ FAIL (poor groupings/missing features)

Phase 4: UX Design (Large Track Only)

After Feature Map passes Gate 2 validation, dispatch product-designer for UX design:

Task(
  subagent_type="ring:product-designer",
  prompt="Create detailed UX design based on PRD, ux-criteria.md, and feature-map.md at docs/pre-dev/{feature}/. Mode: ux-design. Create: user-flows.md with Mermaid diagrams for all user journeys (happy path, error paths, edge cases), wireframes/ directory with YAML specs for all screens, UI state documentation for all interactive elements."
)

UX Design Outputs:

  • docs/pre-dev/{feature}/user-flows.md - Detailed user flows with Mermaid diagrams
  • docs/pre-dev/{feature}/wireframes/ - Directory with YAML wireframe specs per screen

UX Design Checklist:

CheckRequired
All user journeys from feature-map have flowsYes
Happy path documented for each flowYes
Error paths documented for each flowYes
Edge cases identified and documentedYes
Wireframe spec for each unique screenYes
All UI states defined (loading, error, empty, success)Yes
Responsive behavior documentedYes
Accessibility requirements in specsYes

If UX Design fails:

  • Missing flow → Add flow for user journey
  • Missing state → Add state definition
  • Incomplete wireframe → Enhance spec with missing components
  • Accessibility gaps → Add a11y requirements

Note: This phase is for Large Track only (2+ day features). Small Track skips to TRD directly.

Feature Map Template Structure

Output to docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/feature-map.md with these sections:

SectionContent
OverviewPRD reference, status, last updated
Feature InventoryTables by category (Core/Supporting/Enhancement/Integration): Feature ID, Name, Description, User Value, Dependencies
Domain GroupingsPer domain: Purpose, Features list, Boundaries (Owns/Consumes/Provides), Integration Points (→/←)
User JourneysPer journey: User Type, Goal, Path (steps with features, integrations, success/failure), Cross-Domain Interactions
Feature Interaction MapASCII/text diagram with relationships, Dependency Matrix table (Feature, Depends On, Blocks, Optional)
Backend Integration Points(Fullstack only) API dependencies per feature, data flow direction, BFF requirements
Phasing StrategyPer phase: Goal, Timeline, Features, User Value, Success Criteria, Triggers for next phase
Scope BoundariesIn Scope, Out of Scope (with rationale), Assumptions, Constraints
Risk AssessmentFeature Complexity Risks table, Integration Risks table
Gate 2 ValidationDate, validator, checklist, approval, next step

Backend Integration Points (Fullstack Features)

⛔ MANDATORY: If topology.scope: fullstack, this section MUST be included.

When This Applies

Check research.md frontmatter:

topology:
  scope: fullstack  # ← This triggers backend integration documentation

Backend Integration Documentation

Add to feature-map.md under ## Backend Integration Points:

## Backend Integration Points

### Overview
- **Topology:** Fullstack
- **API Pattern:** [direct | bff]
- **Backend Services:** List of backend services this feature depends on

### Per-Feature API Dependencies

| Feature | Backend Dependency | Data Direction | Notes |
|---------|-------------------|----------------|-------|
| F-001: User Dashboard | User Service | Read | Profile data |
| F-001: User Dashboard | Order Service | Read | Recent orders |
| F-002: Create Order | Order Service | Write | New order |
| F-002: Create Order | Inventory Service | Read | Stock check |

### Data Flow Summary

| Frontend Component | → | BFF/API | → | Backend Service |
|-------------------|---|---------|---|-----------------|
| DashboardPage | → | /api/dashboard | → | User + Order Services |
| OrderForm | → | /api/orders | → | Order + Inventory Services |

### BFF Requirements Matrix

| Feature | Needs BFF? | Reason |
|---------|-----------|--------|
| F-001 | Yes | Aggregates 2 services |
| F-002 | Yes | Needs inventory validation |
| F-003 | No | Single service, simple read |

Integration Risk Identification

Document risks related to backend dependencies:

### Integration Risks

| Feature | Backend Dependency | Risk | Mitigation |
|---------|-------------------|------|------------|
| F-001 | Order Service | Service unavailable | Graceful degradation |
| F-002 | Inventory Service | Stale stock data | Real-time check before submit |

Rationalization Table for Backend Integration

ExcuseReality
"Backend integration is TRD concern"TRD designs architecture. Feature Map identifies integration POINTS. Different scope.
"We'll figure out APIs during implementation"Late API discovery causes frontend/backend misalignment. Document early.
"Feature Map is business only"Integration points are business-level data flows. WHERE data comes from matters.
"API pattern is already in research.md"Pattern is high-level. Feature Map documents per-feature specifics.

Common Violations

ViolationWrongCorrect
Tech in FeaturesF-001: JWT-based auth with PostgreSQL sessions, Deps: Database, Redis cacheF-001: Users can create accounts and log in, User Value: Access personalized features, Deps: None (foundational), Blocks: F-002, F-003
Tech in DomainsDomain: Auth Services with AuthService, TokenValidator, SessionManager componentsDomain: User Identity - Purpose: Managing user accounts and sessions. Features: Registration, Login, Session Mgmt, Password Recovery. Owns: credentials, session state. Provides: identity verification
Tech in IntegrationUser Auth → Profile: REST API call to /api/profile with JWTUser Auth → Profile: Provides verified user identity

Confidence Scoring

FactorPointsCriteria
Feature Coverage0-25All mapped: 25, Most: 15, Some missing: 5
Relationship Clarity0-25All documented: 25, Most clear: 15, Unclear: 5
Domain Cohesion0-25Logically cohesive: 25, Mostly: 15, Poor boundaries: 5
Journey Completeness0-25All paths: 25, Primary: 15, Incomplete: 5

Action: 80+ proceed to TRD | 50-79 address gaps | <50 rework groupings

Output & After Approval

Outputs:

  • docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/feature-map.md - Feature relationship map
  • docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/user-flows.md - Detailed user flows (from product-designer, Large Track only)
  • docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/wireframes/ - Wireframe specifications (from product-designer, Large Track only)
  1. ✅ Lock Feature Map - scope and relationships are now reference
  2. ✅ Lock user-flows.md and wireframes/ - UX specs for implementation (Large Track)
  3. 🎯 Use all as input for TRD (next phase)
  4. 🚫 Never add technical architecture retroactively
  5. 📋 Keep business features separate from technical components

The Bottom Line

If you wrote a Feature Map with technical architecture details, remove them.

The Feature Map is business-level feature relationships only. Period. No components. No APIs. No databases.

Technical architecture goes in TRD. That's the next phase. Wait for it.

Map the features. Understand relationships. Then architect in TRD.


Standards Loading (MANDATORY)

This skill is a business analysis skill and does NOT require WebFetch of language-specific standards.

Purpose: Feature Map defines business-level feature relationships and groupings. Technical standards are irrelevant at this stage—they apply during TRD (Gate 3) and implementation.

However, MUST load PRD (Gate 1) and ux-criteria.md to ensure feature map aligns with validated business requirements.


Blocker Criteria - STOP and Report

ConditionActionSeverity
PRD (Gate 1) not validatedSTOP and complete Gate 1 firstCRITICAL
Technical architecture creeps into mapSTOP and remove—keep business level onlyHIGH
Feature domains have unclear boundariesSTOP and clarify domain ownershipHIGH
User journeys cross all domains (no cohesion)STOP and re-evaluate domain groupingsMEDIUM
Backend integration points undefined (fullstack)STOP and document API dependenciesHIGH
Circular feature dependencies detectedSTOP and resolve dependency cycleHIGH

Cannot Be Overridden

These requirements are NON-NEGOTIABLE:

  • MUST NOT include technical architecture or components
  • MUST NOT include technology choices or frameworks
  • MUST NOT include database schemas or API specifications
  • MUST map ALL features from PRD (no missing features)
  • MUST define feature categories (Core/Supporting/Enhancement/Integration)
  • MUST define domain groupings with clear boundaries
  • MUST document backend integration points for fullstack features
  • MUST dispatch product-designer for UX Design (Large Track only)

Severity Calibration

SeverityDefinitionExample
CRITICALCannot proceed with mappingPRD not validated, no features to map
HIGHMap contains forbidden contentTechnical components, API specs
MEDIUMMap incomplete but usableSome journeys not fully documented
LOWMinor documentation gapsIntegration point descriptions brief

Pressure Resistance

User SaysYour Response
"Include the component architecture""Cannot include components. Feature Map is business-level only. Components go in TRD."
"Feature relationships are obvious""Cannot assume obvious. Obvious to you ≠ documented for team. I'll map explicitly."
"Skip UX Design, we have wireframes""Cannot skip UX Design for Large Track. Wireframes need detailed flows and states. I'll dispatch product-designer."
"Mention the API dependencies""Cannot include API specifics. Document business-level integration points only. 'Feature A uses data from Feature B'."
"This feels like extra work""Cannot skip mapping. Skipping causes architecture-feature mismatch. 30 minutes now saves days of rework."

Anti-Rationalization

RationalizationWhy It's WRONGRequired Action
"Feature relationships are obvious"Obvious to you ≠ documented for teamMap explicitly
"We can figure out groupings during TRD"TRD architecture follows feature structureDefine groupings first
"This feels like extra work"Skipping causes rework when architecture mismatches featuresComplete the mapping
"PRD already has this info"PRD lists features; map shows relationshipsDifferent views, both needed
"I'll just mention the components"Components are technical (TRD territory)Keep business groupings only
"User journeys are in the PRD"PRD has stories; map shows cross-feature flowsDifferent levels
"Integration points are technical"WHERE features interact = business. HOW = technicalDocument integration points

When This Skill Is Not Needed

  • Small Track workflow (< 2 days) → skip to TRD
  • Single simple feature → TRD directly
  • PRD (Gate 1) not validated → complete Gate 1 first
  • Feature Map already exists and is validated
  • Bug fix with no feature relationship changes
  • Documentation-only updates

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.82%
按下载量换算102

Claude

27.61%
按下载量换算81

Cursor

20.09%
按下载量换算59

Gemini CLI

8.42%
按下载量换算25

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills