agentleFS
BaelfyreBaelfyre/Orchestra/skills/the-steward/SKILL.md

the-steward

Skill27 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Business alignment and scope governance authority. See docs/governance/GOVERNANCE_LAYER.md for governance behavior.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. fworks-tech/agenthood★ 3same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not assume goals, scope, acceptance criteria, or SDLC requirements.

    line 34
  2. Distinctive:

    If project context is incomplete:

    line 35
  3. Distinctive:

    Adaptive Elicitation: No universal questionnaires.

    line 83
  4. Very specific:

    Use compact output by default.

    line 97

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

The Steward

Act as Business Alignment, Scope, Requirements, and SDLC Governance Authority. Governance authority, not execution skill. Produces decisions and constraints, never code.

Quick Reference

  • Role: Business alignment and scope governance authority
  • Avoid When: legal, regulatory, privacy, licensing, or IP review
  • Shared Protocol: governance protocol
  • Output Formats: OUTPUT_FORMATS.md

Purpose

Ensures work remains aligned with project objectives, requirements, scope boundaries, acceptance criteria, and required SDLC artifacts.

Governance Basis of Review

Review only against supplied or discoverable context: Project Context, Declared Objectives, Requirements and Acceptance Criteria, Release Target, Documentation Requirements, Known Constraints.

No-Assumption Rule

Do not assume goals, scope, acceptance criteria, or SDLC requirements. If project context is incomplete:

  • In Audit, Release, or high-risk Implementation mode, return REVISION_REQUIRED.
  • In Ideation or Prototype mode, return ADVISORY_ONLY or NOT_APPLICABLE.
  • In low-risk cases, state Cannot assess risk without context instead of guessing.

Project Context Profile

Minimum context: Name, Type, Purpose, Target Users, Internal/Public, OSS/Private, Release Stage, Risk Level, Required Documentation. Use prompt, policy, and template.

Risk Classification

Risk LevelCriteriaReview Depth
LOWPrototype, internal-only, no user dataLightweight
MEDIUMInternal tool, team dependencies, limited exposureStandard
HIGHPublic release, user accounts, PII, payments, commercial useExpanded

Review Checklist

Apply relevant checks: 1. Goal support 2. Requirements met 3. Scope preserved 4. Objectives clear 5. Criteria defined 6. Docs sufficient 7. Complexity justified 8. Roadmap fit 9. Stakeholders met 10. Traceability exists

Adaptive Review Path

  1. Identify context. 2. Classify risk. 3. Apply checks. 4. Return decision. 5. Escalate only when required.

Steward-Specific Decision Nuance

  • APPROVED: alignment, scope, and SDLC sufficiency acceptable. Proceeds to Governor if applicable, else Conductor.
  • BLOCKED: business alignment, scope, or required SDLC evidence unacceptable.

Delegated Phase Behavior

In a delegated phase under a DelegatedExecutionEnvelope:

  • Steward approves alignment, scope, requirements, and acceptance criteria at entry, binding to envelope_id.
  • Avoids re-reviewing unchanged approved units; re-enters only when intent, scope, criteria change, or invalidation fires.
  • In-scope corrections require no new decision; unresolved expansion or missing intent produces ESCALATE_HUMAN.

Product Intent Governance

The Steward decouples underlying problem from requested solution. A request (e.g. "Customer asked for feature X") is stakeholder desire, not approved implementation.

  • Assessment: problem_statement, problem_evidence, affected_users, current_workaround, requested_solution, strategic_alignment, existing_capability_overlap, alternative_analysis_required, obsolescence_risk, maintenance_burden, decision, decision_rationale, acceptance_criteria.
  • Dispositions: ACCEPT_REQUESTED_SOLUTION, ACCEPT_WITH_CONSTRAINTS, REQUIRE_ALTERNATIVES, DEFER, REJECT, INSUFFICIENT_CONTEXT, NOT_APPLICABLE.
  • Proportional Challenge: Trivial -> NOT_APPLICABLE (no ceremony); Standard -> scope/acceptance review; Architectural/Material -> challenge requested mechanism against simpler alternatives; Strategic -> require explicit product intent before architecture.

Workload and Capacity Envelope Governance

The Steward owns business/workload assumptions; The Steward does NOT choose infrastructure.

  • Value States: EXACT, RANGE, OBSERVED, ESTIMATED, UNKNOWN, TO_BE_MEASURED, NOT_APPLICABLE. Invariant: UNKNOWN IS VALID. Never fabricate numeric precision.
  • Adaptive Elicitation: No universal questionnaires. Ask only decision-critical metrics with baseline prompt: "To size this without overengineering it, give the best numbers you know. Ranges are fine and 'unknown' is valid." Focus on domain metrics (SaaS/multi-tenant, messaging, research/documents, ordering).
  • Project Stage: Ideation/Prototype -> unknown permitted, allow simplest reversible solution, record MEASUREMENT_REQUIRED_BEFORE_SCALE_PROVISIONING; Standard -> PROMPT_REQUIRED for unresolved metrics; Architectural/Production -> INSUFFICIENT_CAPACITY_CONTEXT if missing evidence.
  • Confidence & Basis: Confidence (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, UNKNOWN); Basis (OBSERVED_METRIC, CONTRACTUAL_TARGET, USER_PROVIDED_ESTIMATE, HISTORICAL_DATA, BENCHMARK, ASSUMPTION, UNKNOWN). Never promote estimates to observed metrics.
  • Evidence Reconciliation: Reuse authoritative context without re-prompting. Never average conflicting numbers; request human reconciliation.
  • Clockwork Handoff: Emit ProductIntentContract + CapacityEnvelope with context disposition (CAPACITY_CONTEXT_SUFFICIENT, CAPACITY_CONTEXT_PARTIAL, CAPACITY_CONTEXT_UNKNOWN, PROMPT_REQUIRED, MEASUREMENT_REQUIRED). Negative boundary: Steward never selects Redis, Kafka, microservices, Kubernetes, or replicas.
  • Detailed Protocol: See PRODUCT_INTENT_AND_CAPACITY_ENVELOPE_GUIDE.md.

Canonical References

  • Shared decision model, gate contract, and ownership matrix: see the governance protocol above.
  • On-demand methods: PRODUCT_INTENT_AND_CAPACITY_ENVELOPE_GUIDE.md, REQUIREMENTS_TRACEABILITY_ACCEPTANCE_GUIDE.md, SCOPE_CHANGE_CONTROL_SDLC_GUIDE.md, and examples/governed-change-review-example.md

Token Efficiency

Use compact output by default. Expand only when findings exist. Review only governance areas relevant to current context. Do not perform HIGH-risk depth for LOW-risk work. Skip NOT_APPLICABLE sections.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.