agentleFS
anandamritrajanandamritraj/goal/skills/forward-deployed-pod/SKILL.md

forward-deployed-pod

Skill1 starsChanged 59 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use to review the output of any GOAL phase (a Goal Brief, a spec, a diff or PR, an eval report, a release plan, or telemetry) from four forward-deployed perspectives at once. Convenes a pod of four persona-agents (FD Product Manager, FD Tech Lead, FDE, FD Domain Expert/Business Owner), auto-selecting which lenses matter for the current phase (read from .goal/state.json), and returns one synthesized Pod Review with a verdict and a queue of proposed actions. The pod advises; the human decides and holds the gate. Use when the user asks for a pod review, a multi-perspective review, or to review a phase's work, and at GOAL phase gates.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Convene the lenses: Read references/phase-lens-matrix.md and select the lenses for the phase.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Check the Pod Review against this rubric, and fix anything that fails:

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Every convened lens produced findings.

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    Every proposed action carries stakes, reversibility, class, and approval status.

    line 31
  5. Distinctive:

    Every high-stakes, irreversible, outbound, or real-world action is gated for human approval.

    line 32

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Forward Deployed Pod

A forward-deployed pod, made of four persona-agents, reviews the current phase's work from four perspectives at once, so no single class of failure slips through. It is the think layer: the pod reasons and recommends. The human decides and holds the gate. It never merges, ships, or acts on its own authority (agency-design Level 1 to 2, never Level 3). It is the concrete multi-perspective verifier that agency-design points to: several advisor lenses check the work before a human looks, then batch to a single verdict and the one highest-leverage fix.

What to do

  1. Find the phase and the target. Read the current phase from .goal/state.json ({ "phase": "...", "project": "..." }). If it is missing, ask the user which phase applies, or default to all four lenses. Identify the target under review: a Goal Brief (Discover), a spec (Specify), a diff or PR (Build), an eval report (Evaluate), a release plan (Deploy), or telemetry and traces (Learn). If the user named an artifact, use it.
  2. Convene the lenses. Read references/phase-lens-matrix.md and select the lenses for the phase. Scale to the stakes: a trivial, reversible change may convene only the lead lens, or skip the pod. Do not run four heavyweight reviews on a one-line change.
  3. Dispatch the convened lenses in parallel. For each convened lens, dispatch a subagent with that role's prompt from references/roles/ (product-manager.md, tech-lead.md, fde.md, domain-business.md) and the target. Run them independently so no lens anchors another.
  4. Synthesize. Merge the findings: deduplicate overlaps, surface disagreements between lenses as explicit tensions (do not average them away), and order by severity (blocker, then important, then minor).
  5. Turn findings into proposed actions. For any finding that implies doing something, emit an ActionRequest following references/action-seam.md (the reference implementation is seam/action_seam.py): set the action, target, rationale, reversible, stakes, and action_class (deterministic or real_world). The pod proposes; it does not execute. Deterministic actions are carried out later by the agent's own tools (Bash, Edit), gated by the permission prompt; real_world actions need an external action runtime (for example Computer Use or a browser MCP) and are surfaced for the human, not run here. Gate everything real-world, irreversible, or above low stakes for human approval, and record every proposed action in the audit.
  6. Write the Pod Review. Fill references/pod-review-template.md, save it as pod-review.md in the working project, and show it to the user. The verdict (ready, ready with fixes, or not ready) names the single highest-leverage fix. The proposed-action queue lists each action with its stakes, class, handler, approval status, and result.

Self-check before you finish

Check the Pod Review against this rubric, and fix anything that fails:

  • Every convened lens produced findings.
  • Disagreements are surfaced as tensions, not hidden or averaged.
  • The verdict names one highest-leverage fix.
  • Every proposed action carries stakes, reversibility, class, and approval status.
  • Every high-stakes, irreversible, outbound, or real-world action is gated for human approval.
  • The review is advisory: no action was taken on the pod's own authority.

Scope to the stakes

Full pod at high-stakes gates (a Discover decision, a spec, a release, an eval verdict). A subset or a single lens for a small, reversible change. The failure mode to avoid is approval-of-everything, which turns the pod itself into the constraint.

See references/examples/jobmate-distractor-filter.md for a worked run across all six phases, including where an external action runtime is needed.

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.