risk-followup-routing
Skill2 starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub
Route a chief verdict's `remaining_findings:` entries by their `target:` annotation (instead of one task per finding). Triggers when a chief verdict carries remaining_findings: to route (build close, fix close); NOT for creating tasks directly (use task_creation).
In this repository78 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adversary-test-planSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- architecture-coherence-reviewSkill
- cavemanSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- cross-spec-consistency-checkSkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- frontend-design-ttySkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- get-api-docsSkill
- impl-plan-reviewSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- knowledge-captureSkill
- knowledge-processorSkill
- pre-build-spec-auditSkill
- retroactive-spec-updateSkill
- scopingSkill
- sectional-deep-reviewSkill
- session-diagnosisSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- show-open-tasksSkill
- source-spec-reduceSkill
- spec-authoringSkill
- task-creationSkill
- task-status-updateSkill
- transparency-headerSkill
- ux-authoringSkill
- youtube-subtitlesSkill
- adversary-test-planSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- architecture-coherence-reviewSkill
- bedrock-drillSkill
- bootSkill
- cavemanSkill
- close-retroSkill
- code-review-boardSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- convergence-loopSkill
- councilSkill
- cross-spec-consistency-checkSkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- frameSkill
- frontend-design-ttySkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- get-api-docsSkill
- impl-plan-reviewSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- knowledge-captureSkill
- knowledge-processorSkill
- pre-build-spec-auditSkill
- python-code-quality-enforcementSkill
- retroactive-spec-updateSkill
- return-summarySkill
- root-cause-fixSkill
- scopingSkill
- sectional-deep-reviewSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
Read and follow framework/work-principle.md before taking up work.
- Very specific: line 68
spec_text batch: if non-empty, dispatch agents/spec-text-drift-batch.md once with the full list (per spec 306 §4.8).
- Very specific: line 77
watch_item: if context/risk-watch.md doesn't exist, create from skills/_protocols/risk-watch-template.md.
- Distinctive: line 80
accept: no file, no fix, no task, no trigger.
- Distinctive: line 82
absorb_next: no immediate action; the verdict entry stays the record until a later change to that file closes it.
- Distinctive: line 107
No semantic edit of finding content.
- Distinctive: line 109
No task duplicate-check (delegated to chief verdict's finding-level dedup.
≈ “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.
Files
Read and follow framework/work-principle.md before taking up work.
Resolve this reference against the framework root; retain the consumer CWD.
Skill: risk-followup-routing
Purpose
Dispatch each remaining_findings: entry from a chief verdict to
the correct downstream destination based on its target: field.
Replaces the legacy risk-followup-task step which created one
task per finding (wrong granularity for the actual mix of finding
types).
When to call
- Build workflow
close-bookkeepinggate, after chief verdict. - Fix workflow analogous gate, after chief verdict.
- Review workflow analogous gate, after chief verdict.
The chief is responsible for annotating every entry with target:
per the 7-value enum (spec 306 §4.7 + code_review_board/verdict.md §5).
This skill assumes that annotation exists; if any entry has empty
target:, the skill fails with a clear error and surfaces back to
the chief for re-emit.
Input
- Path to chief verdict file (e.g.
docs/reviews/board/<id>-consolidated.md). - Path to consumer's
context/risk-watch.md(created if absent perskills/_protocols/risk-watch-template.md).
Process
- Parse the chief verdict's
remaining_findings:block. Validate that every entry has atarget:field. On missing field: FAIL withtarget_missing_on_<id>. - Group entries by
target:value:spec_text: collect all into a single batch.new_task: each entry filed independently.watch_item: collect for risk-watch append.accept: the verdict entry is the record (accepted limitation — distinct fromabsorb_next: no future fix implied).absorb_next: the verdict entry is the record; the next review brief for a touched file names it (code_review_board/brief-and-team.md§2).closes_with: <id>: validate referenced finding exists in same verdict.re_review: <reviewer>: collect for re-dispatch.
- Dispatch per group:
- spec_text batch: if non-empty, dispatch
agents/spec-text-drift-batch.mdonce with the full list (per spec 306 §4.8). If chief verdict is FAIL and MCA fix-pass dispatches in parallel, fire both in one tool message (the parallel-dispatch invariant is in §4.8). - new_task per entry: dispatch
task_creationskill per entry. When called from this routing, skip the duplicate-check step oftask_creation(the chief verdict already deduped at finding-level). - watch_item: if
context/risk-watch.mddoesn't exist, create fromskills/_protocols/risk-watch-template.md. Append each entry verbatim under## Entries. - accept: no file, no fix, no task, no trigger; the verdict entry records the known accepted limitation.
- absorb_next: no immediate action; the verdict entry stays the record until a later change to that file closes it.
- closes_with: assert the referenced finding exists in the
same verdict. On miss: FAIL with
closes_with_target_missing. On hit: no further action. - re_review: dispatch the named reviewer with the finding cluster as scoped focus. The re-review's verdict appends to the existing chief verdict (not a new pass). One-shot — if uncertainty persists, escalate to council per existing cross-layer-decision pattern.
- spec_text batch: if non-empty, dispatch
- Aggregate routing report:
<N> entries routed (<count> spec_text, <count> new_task, <count> watch_item, <count> accept, <count> absorb_next, <count> closes_with, <count> re_review).
Output
DELIVERS:
- Spec-text patches applied (via spec-text-drift-batch sub-agent return, when spec_text entries exist).
- Tasks filed (via task_creation per entry).
- Risk-watch append (one or more entries).
- accept / absorb_next / closes_with: the verdict entry is the record (no file).
- Re-review dispatched for re_review entries.
DOES NOT DELIVER:
- No semantic edit of finding content. The routing applies what the chief decided; it does not re-decide.
- No task duplicate-check (delegated to chief verdict's finding-level dedup; explicit skip-flag passed to task_creation).
ENABLES:
- Bulk-task-bloat avoidance (vs the legacy
risk-followup-taskwhich filed one task per finding regardless of type). - Mechanical traceability (every finding ends up in a known location: applied diff / task / risk-watch / verdict).
Failure modes
- Missing
target:field: chief verdict didn't annotate all entries. FAIL — return to chief for re-emit. closes_with: <id>references non-existent finding: chief emit error. FAIL with locator.re_review: <reviewer>references unknown reviewer: the reviewer name is not in the framework's persona registry. FAIL with reviewer name + suggestion to use a known persona.- spec-text-drift-batch returns PARTIAL: some entries skipped. Surface the skip reasons to user; the routing succeeds for the applied entries but flags partial-completion.
Replaces
- Legacy
risk-followup-taskstep in build / fix / review WORKFLOW.md. The legacy step's name is preserved as a deprecated alias for one release cycle to avoid breaking in-flight runs; new dispatches userisk-followup-routing.
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
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.

