agentleFS
RichardGeorgeDavisRichardGeorgeDavis/Codex-Workspace/.agents/skills/quality-gate/SKILL.md

quality-gate

Skill2 starsChanged 56 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a task needs explicit verification criteria before work is considered complete.

42 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use deploy.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • VercelSkill

    deploy

    Deploy applications to Vercel. Use when the user says "deploy", "deploy to Vercel", "push to production", "deploy my app", or "go live".

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when the task needs a visible definition of done instead of informal confidence.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer observable checks over vague confidence.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    If a check cannot be run, say so explicitly and state the residual risk.

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Use a compact structure such as:

    line 29

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 34 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

Quality Gate

Use this skill when the task needs a visible definition of done instead of informal confidence.

Intent

Make completion criteria explicit before or during implementation so verification is cheaper and less subjective.

Recommended mode handling

  • fast: verify the critical path only
  • standard: verify the normal user path plus obvious regressions
  • strict: verify edge cases, regressions, and failure handling before treating the work as complete

Working rules

  1. State what must be true for the task to count as done.
  2. Prefer observable checks over vague confidence.
  3. Distinguish required verification from optional nice-to-have checks.
  4. If a check cannot be run, say so explicitly and state the residual risk.

Output shape

Use a compact structure such as:

  • scope
  • required checks
  • checks completed
  • checks skipped
  • residual risks

Good fits

  • release preparation
  • refactors with regression risk
  • security-sensitive changes
  • migration work
  • tasks where multiple contributors need the same definition of done

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.