task-decomposer

Produces structured phased task boards from feature requests: dependency-mapped work items with parallelization flags, risk flags, edge case tables, and test strategy matrices. Triggers on: "decompose this feature", "task breakdown with dependencies", "phased implementation plan", "dependency map for", "break this into tasks with phases", "work breakdown structure". The differentiator is the structured output format (phased tables, parallelization flags, dependency chains) — use this skill when you need a formal task board, not ad-hoc decomposition the model handles natively. NOT for effort estimates, PERT calculations, or confidence intervals — use estimate-calibrator instead.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "task-decomposer" with this command: npx skills add mathews-tom/praxis-skills/mathews-tom-praxis-skills-task-decomposer

Task Decomposer

Transforms ambiguous feature requests into concrete, implementable task sequences: identifies acceptance criteria, decomposes into phased work items with effort sizing, maps dependencies and parallelization, enumerates edge cases, plans testing, and flags risks — producing a ready-to-execute task board.

When to use this skill vs native decomposition: The base model decomposes features well in an ad-hoc format. Use this skill specifically when you need the structured output: phased task tables with dependency mapping, parallelization flags, risk flags, and integrated test strategy. If you just need a quick list of steps, ask directly without invoking this skill.

Reference Files

FileContentsLoad When
references/decomposition-patterns.mdFeature → task decomposition strategies, granularity guidelinesAlways
references/edge-case-checklist.mdCommon edge case categories by domain (web, API, data, CLI)Edge case identification needed
references/dependency-mapping.mdDependency graph construction, critical path identificationMulti-task breakdown
references/sizing-guide.mdEffort estimation guidance (S/M/L), complexity indicatorsEffort sizing needed

Prerequisites

  • Feature description or requirements (can be vague — the skill handles ambiguity)
  • Project context (tech stack, existing architecture, team size)

Workflow

Phase 1: Understand the Feature

  1. Extract the user-facing goal — What does this feature enable the user to do? If unclear, state assumptions explicitly.
  2. Define acceptance criteria — What must be true for this feature to be "done"? Express as testable statements: "User can X", "System does Y when Z."
  3. Identify non-functional requirements — Performance, security, accessibility, backwards compatibility constraints.
  4. Clarify scope boundaries — What is explicitly out of scope? State this to prevent scope creep during implementation.

Phase 2: Decompose into Tasks

Break the feature into tasks at the right granularity:

GranularitySizeExample
Too coarse"Build the search feature"Not actionable
Right level"Add full-text search index to products table"Single PR, testable
Too fine"Import the search library"Not independently meaningful

Right granularity test: Each task should be completable in a single PR, testable in isolation, and deliverable independently (even if not user-visible alone).

Group tasks into phases:

PhasePurposeContains
FoundationData models, schemas, interfacesTypes, database tables, API contracts
Core logicBusiness logic, algorithmsThe actual feature implementation
IntegrationConnecting components, API endpointsRoutes, controllers, wire-up
PolishEdge cases, error handling, UXValidation, error messages, loading states

Phase 3: Identify Edge Cases

For each task, enumerate edge cases:

  1. Input boundaries — Empty, null, maximum size, special characters
  2. State transitions — Concurrent modification, interrupted operations
  3. Error conditions — Network failures, invalid data, permission denied
  4. Backwards compatibility — Existing data, existing API consumers

Phase 4: Plan Testing

For each task, identify what to test:

Test LevelWhat to TestWho Writes
UnitIndividual functions, pure logicDuring implementation
IntegrationComponent interactions, API endpointsAfter integration phase
ManualUser flows, visual correctnessAfter polish phase

Phase 5: Map Dependencies

Identify which tasks depend on others:

  1. Hard dependencies — Task B requires Task A's output (database table must exist before writing queries)
  2. Soft dependencies — Task B benefits from Task A but could use a stub
  3. No dependency — Tasks can be done in parallel

Phase 6: Flag Risks

For each risk, identify mitigation:

Risk TypeExampleMitigation
Technical unknown"Never used WebSockets before"Spike/prototype first
External dependency"Requires API access we don't have"Request early, use mocks
Scope uncertainty"Requirements may change"Implement core first, defer edge cases
Performance risk"May be slow with 1M rows"Add benchmark task, define acceptable threshold

Output Format

## Task Decomposition: {Feature Name}

### Feature Summary
{One paragraph describing what this feature does and why}

### Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] {Testable statement 1}
- [ ] {Testable statement 2}
- [ ] {Testable statement 3}

### Scope
- **In scope:** {what's included}
- **Out of scope:** {what's excluded}

### Task Breakdown

#### Phase 1: Foundation
| # | Task | Effort | Dependencies | Parallel |
|---|------|--------|--------------|----------|
| 1.1 | {task description} | {S/M/L} | None | Yes |
| 1.2 | {task description} | {S/M/L} | 1.1 | No |

#### Phase 2: Core Logic
| # | Task | Effort | Dependencies | Parallel |
|---|------|--------|--------------|----------|
| 2.1 | {task description} | {S/M/L} | 1.x | Yes |
| 2.2 | {task description} | {S/M/L} | 1.x | Yes |

#### Phase 3: Integration
| # | Task | Effort | Dependencies | Parallel |
|---|------|--------|--------------|----------|
| 3.1 | {task description} | {S/M/L} | 2.x | No |

#### Phase 4: Polish
| # | Task | Effort | Dependencies | Parallel |
|---|------|--------|--------------|----------|
| 4.1 | {task description} | {S/M/L} | 3.x | Yes |

### Edge Cases

| # | Edge Case | Handling | Phase |
|---|-----------|----------|-------|
| 1 | {edge case} | {how to handle} | {which phase} |

### Test Strategy

#### Unit Tests
- {Component}: {what to test}

#### Integration Tests
- {Flow}: {what to test}

#### Manual Verification
- {Scenario}: {what to check}

### Risk Flags
- {Risk}: {mitigation strategy}

Calibration Rules

  1. Right granularity. Each task should be 1-3 days of work. Larger → decompose further. Smaller → merge into a parent task.
  2. Testable acceptance criteria. "Make search work" is not testable. "Search returns relevant results within 200ms for queries up to 100 characters" is testable.
  3. Dependencies are sacred. If Task B truly depends on Task A, mark it. False dependencies slow teams down; missing dependencies cause integration failures.
  4. Edge cases are not optional. Every feature has edge cases. If the edge case list is empty, the analysis is incomplete.
  5. Parallel = velocity. Maximize parallel tasks. If 4 tasks can be done simultaneously, the phase takes the duration of the longest, not the sum.

Error Handling

ProblemResolution
Feature description is vagueState assumptions, decompose what's known, mark uncertain tasks with "pending clarification."
Feature is too large (20+ tasks)Split into multiple features. A feature that takes months is a project, not a feature.
No clear acceptance criteriaHelp the user define them: "What does done look like? What would you demo?"
Technical stack unknownDecompose at the logical level (data model, business logic, API, UI) without implementation specifics.

When NOT to Decompose

Push back if:

  • The task is already atomic (single function, single file change) — just do it
  • The user wants time estimates, not task breakdown — use estimate-calibrator instead
  • The feature is exploratory (research, prototype) — decomposition assumes known scope

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

General

html-presentation

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

concept-to-image

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

md-to-pdf

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

sequential-thinking

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review