agentleFS
TylerAkinsTylerAkins/ai-agent-skills/skills/release-readiness/SKILL.md

release-readiness

Skill1 starsChanged 32 days agoMITView on GitHub

Assess a specific release, prepare staged rollout and recovery, and verify production outcomes. Use when asked whether a change is ready to ship, to prepare a launch, or to conduct an authorized rollout. Readiness assessment does not authorize deployment, feature activation, rollback, or external announcements.

48 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use dependency-cve-sweep, fleet-standard-adoption and 10 more.

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.
  • berntpoppSkill

    dependency-cve-sweep

    Use when handling Dependabot PRs, CodeQL/Trivy alerts, or doing a routine dependency/CVE sweep for this repo.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • berntpoppSkill

    fleet-standard-adoption

    Use when bringing this repo into compliance with a GeneFoundry fleet standard (tool-naming, response-envelope, container-hardening, versioning, MCP transport, or logging) or closing its tracking issue.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • IgorGanapolskySkill

    ci-failure-triage

    Triage a CI / PR check failure by READING the failure body before forming any hypothesis. Triggered whenever a required check is red, a PR is BLOCKED, a merge won't land, or you're about to call a failure "transient", "flaky", "stale", or "orphaned". Prevents dismissing a real failure (e.g. real CodeQL security alerts) as noise.

    Also in 14 projects that use this

  • VersoXBTSkill

    code-quality-review

    Perform structured code reviews enforcing quality standards, naming conventions, architecture patterns, and team agreements. Use when the user says 'review this code', 'code review', 'check quality', 'review my PR', 'what's wrong with this', 'improve this code', 'review before merge', 'peer review', or 'audit this'. Also triggers on 'code quality', 'review standards', 'enforce conventions', 'tech debt check', 'lint review', or when user completes a significant code change.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • ffsshhttiikkSkill

    unit-testing

    Unit testing best practices and patterns

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • jarosser06Skill

    test-strategy

    Plans pytest test strategies for Drift's 90%+ coverage requirement using coverage analysis, edge case identification, and test suite design. Use when determining what tests to write, analyzing coverage gaps, or planning test strategies.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +2 more from berntpopp

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 47 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 11

    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:

    Never dismiss reviews or approvals or configure automatic stale-review dismissal to clear a release gate.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Read anti-ai-writing before drafting plans or reports.

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not treat a general launch request as permission to bypass protections, make unrelated infrastructure changes, or send unseen …

    line 31
  4. Distinctive:

    Check relevant failure modes, security and tenant boundaries, performance/capacity, accessibility for affected user interfaces, …

    line 41
  5. Distinctive:

    Use ci-cd-workflows for pipeline mechanics, safe-migrations for data or contract transitions, test-authoring for coverage gaps, and

    line 46
  6. Distinctive:

    If missing policy creates a consequential decision, surface it before dependent work.

    line 66
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not claim that reverting a commit or deploying an old binary reverses data changes.

    line 82
  8. Distinctive:

    Use existing deployment mechanisms and promote the verified artifact.

    line 91
  9. Distinctive:

    If criteria fail, hold progression and follow authorized recovery.

    line 96
  10. Distinctive:

    Use root-cause-debug for investigation.

    line 98
  11. Distinctive:

    Check critical behavior, observability, relevant service metrics, and compatibility after exposure.

    line 103

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 47 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

Release Readiness

Never dismiss reviews or approvals or configure automatic stale-review dismissal to clear a release gate. Preserve history; request re-review only when authorized.

Read anti-ai-writing before drafting plans or reports. Coordinate the release using existing project procedures. Keep checks proportional to the product and risk; do not impose web-only checks on libraries or fixed rollout percentages and waiting periods on every service.

1. Identify the release and authorization

Resolve the repository, source revision, artifact/version and digest when available, target environment, changes being released, and intended user exposure. Distinguish deploying code, enabling behavior, publishing a package, and retiring old behavior. Inspect repository instructions, release runbooks, CI evidence, configuration, environment protections, and relevant incidents.

Establish the requested actions and preserve existing authorization. Planning or assessment does not authorize live changes. Before requesting missing execution approval, prepare the concrete candidate, destination, rollout, and recovery plan. Do not treat a general launch request as permission to bypass protections, make unrelated infrastructure changes, or send unseen announcements.

2. Assess readiness against evidence

Identify applicable acceptance criteria, required checks and reviews, compatibility obligations, and operational prerequisites. Verify evidence belongs to the candidate and intended environment. A green build or prior release does not prove the current release is ready. Reassess coverage after material changes.

Check relevant failure modes, security and tenant boundaries, performance/capacity, accessibility for affected user interfaces, configuration, credentials, and critical user flows. Use actual project budgets and requirements. State missing evidence instead of inventing universal thresholds or declaring all checklist items mandatory.

Use ci-cd-workflows for pipeline mechanics, safe-migrations for data or contract transitions, test-authoring for coverage gaps, and code-review for required candidate review. These procedures support readiness; invoking them does not establish completion.

Record the candidate and target, each applicable required gate and its actual result, and any missing or failed evidence. Reuse check results only when they cover the same candidate and the conditions they claim to verify; rerun affected checks after material changes. Apply the project's requirements rather than imposing a clean worktree, a test count, or a generic command list on every release. Record a supported disposition: ready for the identified next stage, blocked by named requirements, or incomplete because evidence is unavailable. Keep readiness separate from permission to execute and from final production success.

3. Prepare rollout and recovery

Define ordered stages with the artifact, target cohort, responsible owner, verification, advance/hold/abort criteria, and recovery action. Follow configured SLO and error-budget policy when present; do not invent one or override an exhausted-budget policy. If missing policy creates a consequential decision, surface it before dependent work.

Choose direct, canary, staged, or flag-controlled exposure according to risk and existing infrastructure. A feature flag is optional machinery, not a substitute for compatible deployment. When used, verify both states, cohort selection, kill switch limitations, owner, and cleanup conditions.

For canaries, compare relevant errors, latency, resource use, and business outcomes with a representative baseline. Check telemetry freshness, sample size, traffic mix, and background or delayed effects. Select observation windows based on usage cycles and available signal. No traffic or missing telemetry cannot demonstrate success.

Prepare actionable recovery steps tied to the deployed artifact and state. Distinguish flag disablement, traffic reversal, code rollback, and data restoration or forward repair. Confirm prerequisites, permissions, expected recovery time when measured, and irreversible boundaries. Rehearse safely when authorized; label untested procedures. Do not claim that reverting a commit or deploying an old binary reverses data changes.

4. Execute only the authorized stages

Immediately before execution, recheck candidate identity, current environment state, required evidence, protections, and authorization. Stop if changes invalidate the plan or require an unresolved decision. Preserve prior approval for unchanged supported actions; obtain approval only for genuinely added scope or materially changed actions.

Use existing deployment mechanisms and promote the verified artifact. Record actual run, version, environment, cohort, and status. Verify deployment success separately from user exposure and application health. Advance only when the stage's evidence supports its criteria; do not auto-expand a canary merely because the job passed.

If criteria fail, hold progression and follow authorized recovery. Without recovery authorization, report the concrete required action and continue safe diagnosis. Use root-cause-debug for investigation. Do not retry ambiguous deployment or publication results until checking whether the action succeeded.

5. Verify outcomes and close the release

Check critical behavior, observability, relevant service metrics, and compatibility after exposure. A health endpoint alone cannot establish that the user flow works. Track known issues and delayed-effect checks with an owner and handoff. If a requested observation period extends beyond this run, use authorized monitoring or an explicit handoff; do not claim the period completed or imply unattended monitoring exists.

Report what was assessed, deployed, enabled, published, or recovered, citing actual evidence and remaining limits. Keep required release notes proportional and accurate. External announcements require approved text and destinations. Git actions and PRs use authorized git-delivery. Cleanup of flags or retired paths follows its own scope and readiness, not an arbitrary post-launch deadline.

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.