agentleFS
KhaledSaeed18KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude/skills/productivity/standup-summary/SKILL.md

standup-summary

Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Generate a standup or weekly-review update from actual work evidence - commits, branches, PRs, and issues across one or more repositories - grouped into done / in progress / blocked / next, written in plain human sentences rather than commit-message-speak. Use when preparing a daily standup, a weekly review, a sprint update, or answering "what did I work on this week".

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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:

    Repositories: default to the current one.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    When gh is available and the repo has a GitHub remote, add the PR and review picture:

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Next: only what the evidence supports (assigned issues, an obvious follow-up) or what the user tells you.

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    Default format, ready to paste into chat:

    line 52

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Reconstruct the update from evidence, not memory. Git and the issue tracker already know what happened; the job is to translate that record into the three or four sentences a teammate actually wants to hear, at the altitude of outcomes ("shipped the retry logic for webhooks") rather than mechanics ("bumped a dependency, fixed a typo, refactored a helper").

Step 1: Establish scope

  • Time window: since the last workday for a standup, the last 5-7 days for a weekly. Confirm if unstated and ambiguous.
  • Identity: the git author to filter by - git config user.name / user.email in the current repo, unless told otherwise.
  • Repositories: default to the current one; ask whether other repos should be included when the user's request implies more ("what did I do this week" often spans several).

Step 2: Collect the evidence

Per repository:

# Commits by the author in the window, all branches
git log --all --author="<email-or-name>" --since="<window>" \
  --pretty="%h %ad %s" --date=short

# Branches touched recently
git for-each-ref --sort=-committerdate refs/heads/ \
  --format="%(committerdate:short) %(refname:short)" | head -10

When gh is available and the repo has a GitHub remote, add the PR and review picture:

gh pr list --author "@me" --state all --limit 15 \
  --json number,title,state,updatedAt,isDraft
gh search prs --reviewed-by "@me" --updated ">$(date -v-7d +%Y-%m-%d)" --limit 10 2>/dev/null
gh issue list --assignee "@me" --state all --limit 15 --json number,title,state,updatedAt

Uncommitted work counts too: git status --short plus the current branch name usually reveals what is in progress right now.

Step 3: Synthesize at outcome altitude

Group raw items into narrative units - a feature, a fix, a review effort - not one bullet per commit. Fifteen commits on one branch are one line. Then sort into:

  • Done: merged, shipped, closed. Lead with the user-visible or team-visible effect.
  • In progress: open PRs (note if awaiting review - that is a nudge, not filler), the active branch, drafts.
  • Blocked / waiting: PRs awaiting someone else, issues waiting on answers, anything the log shows stalled for days. Only include real blockers; do not invent one for symmetry.
  • Next: only what the evidence supports (assigned issues, an obvious follow-up) or what the user tells you. Never fabricate plans.

Translate mechanics to outcomes: "fix flaky auth test, bump vitest, retry CI" becomes "stabilized the auth test suite; CI is green again". Keep PR/issue numbers as parenthetical references.

Step 4: Deliver in the requested shape

Default format, ready to paste into chat:

**Yesterday / this week**
- Shipped X (#123): <one-clause effect>
- Reviewed Y's Z PR (#125)

**Today / next**
- Finish A (PR #124, awaiting review)

**Blocked**
- B: waiting on <who/what> since <when>

Match the team's medium when told (Slack markdown, plain text, bullet-less prose). Keep the whole update under ten lines unless asked for the long form; the detail lives in the links. If some evidence source was unavailable (no gh, a repo you could not read), say so in one trailing line rather than silently narrowing the window.

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.