uber-report
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run the Guardrails agent team against the current state of the repo and produce a short, honest status + readiness report with a slug-keyed findings index. Use at the start of a work session, after a burst of multi-session work, or before deciding what to build next. The headline is the Reality Gate — three booleans from evidence, never from plans. Reports land in .claude/tasks/.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- cut-releaseSkill
- guardrails-dev-knowledgeSkill
- guardrails-domain-knowledgeSkill
- guardrails-reviewSkill
- plan-breakdownSkill
The file
Files
Guardrails — Uber Report
A deliberately lightweight adaptation of the house uber-report pattern. This repo is small and single-track: don't pad — a short report on a small repo is correct.
The Reality Gate (fill from EVIDENCE, first, always)
| Gate | How to check | Pass? |
| Build + tests pass | dotnet build + dotnet test (Release, clean) | ☐ |
| Walking skeleton runs | guardrails run examples/hello-guardrails/hello-guardrails --fresh --no-ui exits 0 (NOTE: spends ~$1 of tokens; if unwilling, mark UNVERIFIED, never pass-by-assumption) | ☐ |
| plan-breakdown round-trips | a breakdown of hello-guardrails.md passes guardrails validate | ☐ |
Until all three pass, the verdict is hard-capped at "walking skeleton not proven" — no doc counts, no milestone counts in the summary.
Procedure
- Prior context: glob
.claude/tasks/*.findings.json; carry forward open slugs; mark satisfied ones completed (confirm by inspection). - WIP survey (brief):
git -C <repo> status --short,log --oneline -15, unmerged branches. Single-session repo — this is usually one line, but say it. - Reality Gate (above).
- Two-axis status:
- Harness vs
docs/plans/03-roadmap.mdmilestones (M1–M7, exit-criteria-based — Built ≠ Verified; check the domain-knowledge Status section, then verify claims). - Skill maturity, per skill: missing / drafted / validated-against-example / battle-tested-on-real-plan.
- Harness vs
- Slim dispatch (read-only, parallel; skip any with nothing to assess):
guardrails-harness-developer— code health of src/** (TODO/dead code/oversized, seam violations, test gaps);guardrails-test-author— suite health, passing-but-blind hunts;guardrails-architect— plan-doc drift vs as-built;guardrails-devils-advocate— risk register against the seeded risks in03-roadmap.md(every seeded row appears, N/A'd if inapplicable). Each proposes ≤ 5 findings, citedpath:line, falsifiable. Report →
.claude/tasks/YYYY-MM-DD-uber-report-vN.md(never overwrite a prior version):# Guardrails — Status & Readiness **Date / HEAD / WIP one-liner** ## Reality Gate (the table, with evidence) ## Executive summary (3–5 sentences; no counts-as-progress) ## Milestones M1–M7 (exit-criterion verdicts, evidence cited) ## Skill maturity ## Findings (merged, deduped, ranked; ≤ ~10) ## Risk register (seeded rows from 03-roadmap.md + run-specific) ## Proposed next actions (slug-keyed)- Findings index → same basename
.findings.json:{ "sourceOfTruth": "plan-docs", "findings": [ { slug, kind, priority, effort, route, status, dependsOn, notes } ] }per finding; carry-forward joins on slug.route∈direct | execute-tasks | guardrails | decide(see Routing below).
Routing
Each finding carries a route the orchestrator proposes and the human confirms — most
findings are small and never need a plan:
direct— trivial, self-evidently correct (rename a test, fix a typo). Just do it.execute-tasks— standard work an agent implements under normal review.guardrails— plan-worthy (multi-step, touches a contract/invariant, needs authored tests). Graduates to this repo's own/plan-breakdown→guardrails-review→guardrails run.decide— needs a human call or a research pass before it's actionable.
Honesty rules
- Built ≠ verified-running: milestone verdicts come from exit criteria demonstrated, not code existing.
- Findings are falsifiable (
path:lineor a named contract) — "looks fine" is not a finding. - The Reality Gate's token-spending check is either RUN or marked UNVERIFIED. Never inferred.
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.

