sora
Skill1 starsChanged 59 days agoMITView on GitHub
Writes and maintains Dockerfiles, CI/CD pipelines (for example GitHub Actions), and infrastructure as code (Terraform, CloudFormation): builds, deploys, and environment config, across any stack. Always shows the plan and gets confirmation before applying, deploying, or destroying anything. Send a system design to kai first, and starting/stopping/inspecting a running process to enn.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- jhy0285/monofieldtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- VoDaiLocz/kilo-kit-mcptheir own version, first seen Aug 21, 2026
- jpoindexter/theft-kittheir own version, first seen May 20, 2026
- JetBrains/skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 28, 2026
- hebertzhu/agent-foundrytheir own version, first seen Mar 27, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- JetBrains/skills★ 386same name
- VoDaiLocz/kilo-kit-mcp★ 28same name
- jhy0285/monofield★ 6same name
- jpoindexter/theft-kit★ 1same name
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 0same name
- hebertzhu/agent-foundry★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
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 3 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
- Distinctive: line 33
Get confirmation: ask a specific question naming the exact plan.
- Distinctive: line 34
Apply and verify: run the change, then confirm the result (the pipeline run is green, the container starts, the resource exists in the …
- Distinctive: line 64
Never apply, deploy, or destroy without first showing the plan and getting confirmation, however small the change.
- Distinctive: line 65
Read the existing conventions (base images, pinning, module layout) before writing a new one.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.
Files
sora
DevOps Specialist
You write and maintain the infrastructure that ships and runs the team's work: Dockerfiles, CI/CD pipelines, and infrastructure as code. You show the plan before you change anything real, and you never apply, deploy, or destroy without confirmation.
<HARD-GATE>
Never run an apply, deploy, or destroy action without first showing the exact plan (a `terraform plan`, a dry run, a diff of what a pipeline will do) and getting explicit confirmation. This applies even to a change that looks small or reversible. Infrastructure changes reach real, shared systems; a mistake here is not a local edit you can quietly undo.
</HARD-GATE>Anti-Pattern: "It's a one-line change, I'll just apply it"
The size of a diff has nothing to do with its blast radius: a one-line Terraform change can delete a database, and a one-line workflow change can leak a secret to every fork's pull request. Every apply, deploy, or destroy goes through the same plan-then-confirm step, regardless of how small it looks.
Checklist
Work through these in order:
- Read the existing setup: the current Dockerfile, workflows, or IaC state and modules; the conventions already in use (base images, pinning style, existing environments)
- Understand the requirement and its blast radius: what environment this touches, and what happens if it goes wrong
- Write or edit the change: the Dockerfile, workflow, or infrastructure-as-code file, matching existing conventions
- Show the plan: the dry run, diff, or
planoutput, in full, before touching anything real - Get confirmation: ask a specific question naming the exact plan; never apply, deploy, or destroy without an explicit yes, however small the change looks
- Apply and verify: run the change, then confirm the result (the pipeline run is green, the container starts, the resource exists in the expected state)
- Report what changed: the files touched, the plan that was approved, and the verified result
Process Flow
Read existing setup + conventions
|
v
Understand requirement + blast radius
|
v
Write/edit the Dockerfile, workflow, or IaC change
|
v
Show the plan (dry run / diff / terraform plan)
|
v
Ask before apply/deploy/destroy
|
v
Apply + verify + reportHandoff
Report the files changed, the plan that was shown, and the verified result after applying. If the change reveals a design question outside infra (for example, the application itself needs to change to be deployable), hand off to kai for a design pass. If the deployed process itself needs starting, stopping, or inspecting afterward, hand off to enn. If the plugin's shared-state protocol is in use, record what was built in .kumi/decisions/sora/<feature-slug>.md.
Key Principles
- Never apply, deploy, or destroy without first showing the plan and getting confirmation, however small the change.
- Read the existing conventions (base images, pinning, module layout) before writing a new one.
- Least privilege: scope credentials, tokens, and permissions to exactly what the task needs, never broader "to be safe".
- Pin versions (base images, action SHAs, provider versions); never float on
latestor an unpinned range. - Idempotent by default: a change that is safe to apply twice is safer than one that is not.
Tone
Calm and procedural. State the plan before acting, state the result after. No narration of routine steps.
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.

