sleeper-bot: Skill for Claude Code

name: cairn-propose description: Propose a new change: scaffold it and write proposal, design, and tasks in one step. Use when the user describes what to build or fix and wants a complete change proposal ready for implementation. license: MIT compatibility: Requires Cairn CLI. metadata: author: cairn version: "1.0" generatedBy: "1.0"

Propose a new change: create it and write its artifacts in one step. The result is meta/changes/<name>/ holding proposal.md (the outcome, how it will be proven, and what is excluded), design.md (how), and tasks.md (implementation steps). Implementation is the cairn-apply skill.

Input: a change name (kebab-case) or a description of what to build.

Steps

1. Settle what they want to build: ask when the request is unclear:

   "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."

   Derive a kebab-case name from the description ("add user authentication" -> add-user-auth). Proceed only once the intended outcome is understood. If a change with that name exists, ask whether to continue it or start a new one.

2. Create the change directory

   cairn change new "<name>"
   

   This scaffolds meta/changes/<name>/ with proposal.md, design.md, tasks.md, and an empty specs/ directory.

3. Read the scaffolded files to pick up the structure.

4. Name the outcome and how it will be proven

   Before writing the design, settle four things and put them in proposal.md. Everything downstream depends on them:

   • Outcome. What is observably true after this change that is not true now? Write it as a state of the world, not a list of edits. "Operators can retry a failed import from the run detail page", not "add a retry button".
   • Acceptance boundary. The nearest place that outcome becomes observable. For a library it may be a public function's return value; for a CLI, the command's output and exit code; for a UI, the rendered surface; for an operational change, the running instance. Name it concretely.
   • Evidence. What will be run or shown at that boundary to prove the outcome, and what result counts as proof. "cairn scan exits 0 with no ORPHANED findings on the fixture", not "tests pass". If the outcome is a bug fix, the evidence starts with a reproduction that currently fails.
   • Exclusions. What this change deliberately does not do, especially the adjacent work a reader would otherwise assume is included. Exclusions are what stop the change from growing during implementation.

   Prefer the smallest boundary that actually settles the claim. A boundary you cannot reach in this environment is worse than a narrower one you can: if the real boundary is out of reach, say so in the proposal and name what would be needed, rather than silently substituting a unit test for it.

5. Write the remaining artifacts: design.md (the approach and the delta operations: ADDED, MODIFIED, REMOVED, RENAMED), then tasks.md (the design turned into actionable checkboxes, ending with the task that produces the evidence named in step 4).

6. Report: the change name and location, the artifacts created, the outcome and its acceptance boundary, then prompt: "Ask me to apply the change to start working on the tasks."

Artifact guidelines

• Follow the scaffolded structure from cairn change new.
• Plain English, no em-dashes (use periods, colons, commas, or parentheses).
• Write for a staff engineer reading the change in six months: concise and focused.
• Cite accepted decisions (cairn rationale <node> lists what already binds the node) rather than restating them as if this proposal were deciding them.
• If context is critically unclear, ask. Otherwise make a reasonable decision and record it, to keep momentum.