governance-protocol
Skill8 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Session governance protocol injected at startup via SessionStart hook
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- anthropic-validatorSkill
- assertion-patternsSkill
- bug-magnet-dataSkill
- bulwark-brainstormSkill
- bulwark-researchSkill
- bulwark-scaffoldSkill
- bulwark-statuslineSkill
- bulwark-verifySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- component-patternsSkill
- continuous-feedbackSkill
- create-skillSkill
- create-subagentSkill
- fix-bugSkill
- initSkill
- issue-debuggingSkill
- mock-detectionSkill
- pipeline-templatesSkill
- plan-creationSkill
- plan-to-tasksSkill
- product-ideationSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- setup-lspSkill
- spec-drift-checkSkill
- subagent-output-templatingSkill
- subagent-promptingSkill
- test-auditSkill
- test-classificationSkill
- test-fixture-creationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈11
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
DISPLAY TO USER: When you receive this protocol, immediately output the following banner exactly as shown:
- Distinctive: line 33
When a skill is loaded:
- Distinctive: line 40
If you find yourself thinking "I can analyze this directly and give a faster answer" - STOP.
- Distinctive: line 74
All code MUST pass quality gates (typecheck, lint, build)
- Distinctive: line 77
If you cannot verify, say: "I've made changes but cannot verify without running [command].
- Distinctive: line 95
Follow pipeline instructions when prompted.
- Distinctive: line 99
Write production-grade code that passes quality checks
- Distinctive: line 100
Use real behavior verification in tests
- Distinctive: line 101
Verify implementations before declaring complete
- Distinctive: line 115
Always use atomic commits with descriptive messages
- Distinctive: line 116
Test coverage must exceed 80%
≈ “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
DISPLAY TO USER: When you receive this protocol, immediately output the following banner exactly as shown:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
BULWARK GOVERNANCE PROTOCOL - ACTIVATED
Quality enforcement enabled for this session
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════Then proceed with the user's request.
MANDATORY: Rules.md is Binding
YOU MUST READ AND FOLLOW Rules.md THROUGHOUT THIS SESSION.
This is not optional. This is not advisory. This is a binding, mandatory, non-negotiable contract.
Rules.md contains immutable rules including:
SC1-SC3: Skill Compliance Rules (CRITICAL)
When a skill is loaded:
- ALL instructions within the skill are BINDING, not advisory
- You MUST spawn sub-agents when the skill specifies sub-agent spawning
- You MUST NOT perform the sub-agent's work yourself
- You MUST NOT substitute your judgment for skill instructions
- You MUST NOT skip steps because they seem unnecessary
If you find yourself thinking "I can analyze this directly and give a faster answer" - STOP. That thought pattern violates SC1-SC2. The skill's pipeline exists for bias avoidance, structured artifacts, and deterministic workflows that you cannot provide when doing everything yourself.
Violation Consequences
Ignoring skill instructions:
- Defeats the purpose of the Bulwark quality enforcement system
- Produces inconsistent, non-reproducible outputs
- Bypasses bias separation that sub-agent pipelines enforce
- Breaks the observability chain required for multi-agent workflows
Bulwark Governance Protocol
This session is governed by The Bulwark quality enforcement system.
How This Works
This skill is automatically injected into Claude's context at session start via the SessionStart hook configured in hooks/hooks.json. It does not need to be manually invoked. The inject-protocol.sh script reads this file and outputs its content to Claude's context.
Quality Gates (Automatic)
PostToolUse hooks run after every Write/Edit operation on code files:
- Typecheck - Code must pass type checking (
just typecheck) - Lint - Code must pass linting (
just lint) - Build - Code must compile/build (
just build)
Failures BLOCK the operation. You will see error messages if quality checks fail.
Before Declaring Complete
Never declare implementation complete without verification:
- All code MUST pass quality gates (typecheck, lint, build)
- Tests MUST verify real behavior (T1-T4 rules - no mock-only tests)
- Changes MUST be verified by running them, not just implementing
- If you cannot verify, say: "I've made changes but cannot verify without running [command]. Please run and confirm."
T1-T4 Testing Rules
| Rule | Requirement |
| T1 | Never mock the system under test |
| T2 | Verify observable output, not function calls |
| T3 | Integration tests use real systems |
| T4 | Run tests before declaring complete |
Pipeline Orchestration
For significant changes, you may be prompted to run review pipelines:
- Code Review - Security, type safety, coding standards
- Test Audit - T1-T4 compliance verification
- Fix Validation - Root cause analysis and fix verification
Follow pipeline instructions when prompted.
Your Role
- Write production-grade code that passes quality checks
- Use real behavior verification in tests
- Verify implementations before declaring complete
Project-Specific Rules
<!--
Users can add project-specific governance rules below.
These will be injected into Claude's context at session start.
NOTE: The core governance rules above should not be modified.
This section is for project-specific additions only.
Examples:
- Always use atomic commits with descriptive messages
- Test coverage must exceed 80%
- Security-sensitive changes require manual review
- Reference docs/architecture.md for design decisions
-->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.

