New Track

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/conductor-new-track

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

New Track Create a new track (feature, bug fix, chore, or refactor) with a detailed specification and phased implementation plan.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Pre-flight Checks, Track Classification, Interactive Specification Gathering, Track ID Generation, Specification Generation, Context.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Working on new track tasks or workflows
• Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for new track
• The task is unrelated to new track
• You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Create a new track with specification and phased implementation plan.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
2. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
3. Provide actionable steps and verification.
4. If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.
5. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
6. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
7. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

• Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
• Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
• Provide actionable steps and verification.
• If detailed examples are required, open

  resources/implementation-playbook.md

  .

Imported: Summary

{1-2 sentence summary}

Imported: Overview

{Brief summary of implementation approach}

Imported: Pre-flight Checks

1. Verify Conductor is initialized:

   • Check

     conductor/product.md

     exists
   • Check

     conductor/tech-stack.md

     exists
   • Check

     conductor/workflow.md

     exists
   • If missing: Display error and suggest running

     /conductor:setup

     first

2. Load context files:

   • Read

     conductor/product.md

     for product context
   • Read

     conductor/tech-stack.md

     for technical context
   • Read

     conductor/workflow.md

     for TDD/commit preferences

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @conductor-new-track to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @conductor-new-track against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @conductor-new-track for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @conductor-new-track using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/conductor-new-track

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Imported Troubleshooting Notes

Imported: Problem Description (for bugs)

{Bug description, steps to reproduce}

Related Skills

• @burp-suite-testing

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @burpsuite-project-parser

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @business-analyst

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @busybox-on-windows

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Track Classification

Determine track type based on description or ask user:

What type of track is this?

1. Feature - New functionality
2. Bug - Fix for existing issue
3. Chore - Maintenance, dependencies, config
4. Refactor - Code improvement without behavior change

Imported: Interactive Specification Gathering

CRITICAL RULES:

• Ask ONE question per turn
• Wait for user response before proceeding
• Tailor questions based on track type
• Maximum 6 questions total

For Feature Tracks

Q1: Feature Summary

Describe the feature in 1-2 sentences.
[If argument provided, confirm: "You want to: {argument}. Is this correct?"]

Q2: User Story

Who benefits and how?

Format: As a [user type], I want to [action] so that [benefit].

Q3: Acceptance Criteria

What must be true for this feature to be complete?

List 3-5 acceptance criteria (one per line):

Q4: Dependencies

Does this depend on any existing code, APIs, or other tracks?

1. No dependencies
2. Depends on existing code (specify)
3. Depends on incomplete track (specify)

Q5: Scope Boundaries

What is explicitly OUT of scope for this track?
(Helps prevent scope creep)

Q6: Technical Considerations (optional)

Any specific technical approach or constraints?
(Press enter to skip)

For Bug Tracks

Q1: Bug Summary

What is broken?
[If argument provided, confirm]

Q2: Steps to Reproduce

How can this bug be reproduced?
List steps:

Q3: Expected vs Actual Behavior

What should happen vs what actually happens?

Q4: Affected Areas

What parts of the system are affected?

Q5: Root Cause Hypothesis (optional)

Any hypothesis about the cause?
(Press enter to skip)

For Chore/Refactor Tracks

Q1: Task Summary

What needs to be done?
[If argument provided, confirm]

Q2: Motivation

Why is this work needed?

Q3: Success Criteria

How will we know this is complete?

Q4: Risk Assessment

What could go wrong? Any risky changes?

Imported: Track ID Generation

Generate track ID in format:

{shortname}_{YYYYMMDD}

• Extract shortname from feature/bug summary (2-3 words, lowercase, hyphenated)
• Use current date
• Example:

  user-auth_20250115

  ,

  nav-bug_20250115

Validate uniqueness:

• Check

  conductor/tracks.md

  for existing IDs
• If collision, append counter:

  user-auth_20250115_2

Imported: Specification Generation

Create

conductor/tracks/{trackId}/spec.md

# Specification: {Track Title}

**Track ID:** {trackId}
**Type:** {Feature|Bug|Chore|Refactor}
**Created:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Status:** Draft

#### Imported: Context

{Product context from product.md relevant to this track}

#### Imported: User Story (for features)

As a {user}, I want to {action} so that {benefit}.

#### Imported: Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] {Criterion 1}
- [ ] {Criterion 2}
- [ ] {Criterion 3}

#### Imported: Dependencies

{List dependencies or "None"}

#### Imported: Out of Scope

{Explicit exclusions}

#### Imported: Technical Notes

{Technical considerations or "None specified"}

---

_Generated by Conductor. Review and edit as needed._

Imported: User Review of Spec

Display the generated spec and ask:

Here is the specification I've generated:

{spec content}

Is this specification correct?
1. Yes, proceed to plan generation
2. No, let me edit (opens for inline edits)
3. Start over with different inputs

Imported: Plan Generation

After spec approval, generate

conductor/tracks/{trackId}/plan.md

Plan Structure

# Implementation Plan: {Track Title}

**Track ID:** {trackId}
**Spec:** spec.md
**Created:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Status:** [ ] Not Started

#### Imported: Phase 1: {Phase Name}

{Phase description}

### Tasks

- [ ] Task 1.1: {Description}
- [ ] Task 1.2: {Description}
- [ ] Task 1.3: {Description}

### Verification

- [ ] {Verification step for phase 1}

#### Imported: Phase 2: {Phase Name}

{Phase description}

### Tasks

- [ ] Task 2.1: {Description}
- [ ] Task 2.2: {Description}

### Verification

- [ ] {Verification step for phase 2}

#### Imported: Phase 3: {Phase Name} (if needed)

...

#### Imported: Final Verification

- [ ] All acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Tests passing
- [ ] Documentation updated (if applicable)
- [ ] Ready for review

---

_Generated by Conductor. Tasks will be marked [~] in progress and [x] complete._

Phase Guidelines

• Group related tasks into logical phases
• Each phase should be independently verifiable
• Include verification task after each phase
• TDD tracks: Include test writing tasks before implementation tasks
• Typical structure:
  1. Setup/Foundation - Initial scaffolding, interfaces
  2. Core Implementation - Main functionality
  3. Integration - Connect with existing system
  4. Polish - Error handling, edge cases, docs

Imported: User Review of Plan

Display the generated plan and ask:

Here is the implementation plan:

{plan content}

Is this plan correct?
1. Yes, create the track
2. No, let me edit (opens for inline edits)
3. Add more phases/tasks
4. Start over

Imported: Track Creation

After plan approval:

1. Create directory structure:

   conductor/tracks/{trackId}/
   ├── spec.md
   ├── plan.md
   ├── metadata.json
   └── index.md
   

2. Create

   metadata.json

   :

   {
     "id": "{trackId}",
     "title": "{Track Title}",
     "type": "feature|bug|chore|refactor",
     "status": "pending",
     "created": "ISO_TIMESTAMP",
     "updated": "ISO_TIMESTAMP",
     "phases": {
       "total": N,
       "completed": 0
     },
     "tasks": {
       "total": M,
       "completed": 0
     }
   }
   

3. Create

   index.md

   :

   # Track: {Track Title}
   
   **ID:** {trackId}
   **Status:** Pending
   
   ## Documents
   
   - Specification
   - Implementation Plan
   
   ## Progress
   
   - Phases: 0/{N} complete
   - Tasks: 0/{M} complete
   
   ## Quick Links
   
   - Back to Tracks
   - Product Context
   

4. Register in

   conductor/tracks.md

   :
   • Add row to tracks table
   • Format:

     | [ ] | {trackId} | {title} | {created} | {created} |

5. Update

   conductor/index.md

   :
   • Add track to "Active Tracks" section

Imported: Completion Message

Track created successfully!

Track ID: {trackId}
Location: conductor/tracks/{trackId}/

Files created:
- spec.md - Requirements specification
- plan.md - Phased implementation plan
- metadata.json - Track metadata
- index.md - Track navigation

Next steps:
1. Review spec.md and plan.md, make any edits
2. Run /conductor:implement {trackId} to start implementation
3. Run /conductor:status to see project progress

Imported: Error Handling

• If directory creation fails: Halt and report, do not register in tracks.md
• If any file write fails: Clean up partial track, report error
• If tracks.md update fails: Warn user to manually register track