lifecycle-export
Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Export generated journeys as CRM-agnostic JSON (journey.schema.json), Mermaid diagrams, or CSV step lists. Use when the user says "export", "JSON ver", "dışa aktar", "şema çıktısı", "CSV ver".
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/llms-full.txtllms.txt
- docs/llms.txtllms.txt
- lifecycle-audienceSkill
- lifecycle-auditSkill
- lifecycle-connectSkill
- lifecycle-copySkill
- lifecycle-intakeSkill
- lifecycle-journeysSkill
- lifecycle-mapSkill
- lifecycle-qaSkill
- lifecycle-resultsSkill
- lifecycleSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Distinctive: line 35
Ask which journeys (default: whole portfolio) and which format (default: JSON).
- Very specific: line 38
Write files to output/<project>/exports/ (gitignored) and show one full example inline, summarizing the rest.
- Very specific: line 42
Never emit JSON that violates the schema (wrong enum, missing required field, malformed id pattern <sector>-<pattern>-<nn>).
- Distinctive: line 43
Never invent CRM-specific field names, variable syntax, or delay units, in the JSON or alongside it.
- Very specific: line 44
Never export copy that hasn't passed copy review.
≈ “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
Lifecycle Export — Structured Output
Convert generated journey docs into machine-consumable formats. Exports are derived from journey docs — never hand-author an export that diverges from its doc.
When NOT to use this
- No journeys exist yet — there's nothing to convert; run
lifecycle-journeysfirst. - The ask is just the normal user-facing deliverable for a fresh run — the HTML canvas is already produced by
lifecycle-journeys/lifecycle-copy's own Output steps; this skill is for the additional formats (JSON, Mermaid, CSV, the standalone report) or a re-export on request, not the default path. - Copy hasn't finished its review loop yet — export refuses to ship unreviewed copy regardless; the fix is finishing
lifecycle-copy's write → review → fix cycle, not forcing an export around it.
Formats
| Format | What | Notes |
| HTML canvas (THE default deliverable — user-approved format) | Journey tabs + meta card (SEGMENT/AMAÇ/PRIMARY METRIC) + vertical tree canvas: entry/decision/message/exit node cards, Evet/Hayır branch pills, SVG connectors, tooltips, DETAYLAR toggles, print view, HTML/PDF download hints | Reproduce ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/canvas.html EXACTLY — replace only the JOURNEYS data array, eyebrow/h1/lede texts, and HOLDOUT_TIP/DATA_NOTE constants with real data. Never redesign it, never add extra views |
| HTML report (optional, on request) | Single page: DQS breakdown, urgent findings, portfolio table, roadmap | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/report.html — offer only when the user asks for an assessment summary beyond the canvas |
| JSON | One file per journey, validating against ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/journey.schema.json | The canonical machine export. Waits use ISO 8601 durations (PT1H, P1D) |
| Mermaid | flowchart TD per journey (already in each doc §8) | Bundled into one .md on request |
| CSV | Flat step list: journey_id, step, wait, channel, intent, branch_condition | For spreadsheet review with non-technical stakeholders |
HTML rules: fully self-contained (inline CSS/JS, no CDN), both themes token-based, no em dashes in customer-visible copy embedded in them, all numbers from real data — the reference templates' demo values never leak into a real export.
Procedure
- Ask which journeys (default: whole portfolio) and which format (default: JSON).
- Transform each journey doc section-by-section into the schema fields. The JSON stays CRM-agnostic:
{{snake_case}}variables, ISO 8601 waits, the schema's own channel and trigger vocabulary. Never translate any of it into a specific tool's syntax. Whoever imports it knows their own tool's variable syntax, delay input and step types; this engine does not, and a mapping written from memory is a fabrication (CLAUDE.md rule 3) that fails silently at import — the wrong Liquid filter or an off-by-one delay unit ships as a working-looking journey. When the user asks for their tool's format, say plainly that the export is the agnostic schema and the import mapping is theirs to apply. - Validate every JSON with
python3 scripts/validate_output.py journey <files>before presenting — schema,version(SemVer, bump on change), embeddedconstraints(allowed channels, discount cap), KPI shape. Copy docs go throughpython3 scripts/validate_output.py copy <files> --max-discount <brand's incentive_policy.max_discount_pct>— the flag is required, not optional: without it the discount-ceiling check silently no-ops (it only runs when a numeric cap is passed), so a discount over the brand cap would pass validation unchecked. Character counts are recounted in code, not trusted. A violation is a hard stop, not a silent fix. - Write files to
output/<project>/exports/(gitignored) and show one full example inline, summarizing the rest.
Never do
- Never emit JSON that violates the schema (wrong enum, missing required field, malformed id pattern
<sector>-<pattern>-<nn>). - Never invent CRM-specific field names, variable syntax, or delay units, in the JSON or alongside it. The export stops at the agnostic schema; the import mapping belongs to whoever owns the tool.
- Never export copy that hasn't passed copy review; export copy refs (
step-1) instead and say copy is pending.
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.

