Solution Expert

Problem it solves

When requirements arrive as scattered docs, meeting notes, or a short user description, a draft often misses the sections needed for review, such as architecture, interfaces, budget, and risk, and the format may not match formal delivery expectations. This skill turns that input into a reviewable technical solution, with a structured 15-chapter layout and a Word file instead of only Markdown.

How it works

It first parses the input and extracts project name, business context, feature list, and technical requirements; missing details are left as [xxx] placeholders rather than invented. It then generates one of two modes:
- Full version: covers project overview, requirements, overall architecture, technology selection, functional modules, data, security, deployment, interfaces, performance, implementation, operations, budget, risk, and appendix; suitable for bidding or formal review.
- Compact version: keeps project overview, requirements, architecture, technology selection, simplified functional design, deployment, implementation, and risk; suitable for quick reporting.

The content prefers paragraph explanations and uses tables only for comparisons, inventories, or configuration lists. Architecture diagrams default to ASCII and Mermaid, and Draw.io output can be attempted when an editable diagram is requested. Budget amounts use placeholders such as [xxx万元]. For Word export, it prefers pandoc, then the docx skill or a Python script, applying formal typography and returning a .docx download path.

Boundaries and caveats

It is best for converting existing requirements into a structured proposal, not for making architecture decisions, compliance reviews, or cost pricing. If input is sparse, the result will contain placeholders. If the environment cannot produce Word output, it falls back to Markdown and explains the limitation.