release-readiness
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Decides whether an integrated candidate is safe to promote to a release, deployment, or publication. Use when the user says ship it, asks to cut a release or publish the package, or asks whether this is safe to deploy, and before a first release, a version bump, a package publish, a production deploy, or a rollout stage expansion. Skip internal work with no release surface.
48 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- voyager67/AgentFieldkittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- HumSaw/shipwright-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- RaditteAnggoro/skill-for-lazy-developertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nledford/engineering-review-boardtheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- pulsejet/memoriestheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-templatetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use dependency-cve-sweep, fleet-standard-adoption and 9 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.
berntpoppSkilldependency-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
berntpoppSkillfleet-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
IgorGanapolskySkillci-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
VersoXBTSkillcode-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
ffsshhttiikkSkillunit-testing
Unit testing best practices and patterns
Also in 3 projects that use this
jarosser06Skilltest-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
Other versions48 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 48
- dotnet/maui★ 23ksame name
- pulsejet/memories★ 3.9ksame name
- AIEraDev/Clypra★ 3.4ksame name
- jordanhubbard/nanolang★ 629same name
- petrkindlmann/qa-skills★ 209same name
- colasama/MahoShojo-Generator★ 167same name
- MRCalderon3D/everything-game-dev-code★ 105same name
- Azure/odinforazurelocal★ 20same name
- jpantsjoha/ai-native-developer-experience★ 13same name
- nledford/engineering-review-board★ 11same name
38 more not listed
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.
In this repository49 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- working-from-a-ticketSkill
- writing-specsSkill
- clarifying-intentSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- handoffSkill
- mapping-the-codebaseSkill
- prototypingSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-sdlc-skillsSkill
- viewing-artifactsSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
- yagniSkill
- finishing-a-branchSkill
- architecture-decisionsSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- data-modelSkill
- migration-strategySkill
- reviewing-plansSkill
- system-architectureSkill
- ui-ux-designSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- adding-observabilitySkill
- changing-a-live-schemaSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- rollout-controlsSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- complexity-auditSkill
- containing-an-incidentSkill
- debuggingSkill
- deprecating-an-apiSkill
- diagnosing-a-sessionSkill
- eliminating-correctionsSkill
- large-scale-changesSkill
- post-mortemSkill
- refactor-architectureSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- define-goalsSkill
- feasibility-checkSkill
- scopingSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- reviewing-a-prSkill
- security-auditsSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- verification-strategySkill
- visual-ui-verificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 47 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 26
Write every attempt and its evidence in the External attempt and evidence ledger (the ledger: add to it, never rewrite it), never in the …
- Distinctive: line 30
Test and promote *that* set.
- Distinctive: line 53
Check the target: configuration, secrets, capacity, dependencies, and the order of the steps (row 6).
- Distinctive: line 60
If the promotion is an expansion or a full release, attach the evidence observed in the prior stage.
- Very specific: line 71
Write the Verdict, naming the identities it is bound to: release input, artifact set, terminal evidence (the complete ledger), approval, …
“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.
Files
Release Readiness
Judge the exact artifact set that will ship, then put the promotion decision to the user. This skill never deploys or publishes.
When to use
- Integrated work is approaching an initial or later release promotion.
- Skip internal work with no release surface. A library or package release is not skipped merely because it has no running production service.
Step 1: Pin down what is being released
Open assets/release-candidate.md before this step's first action; each step
fills its sections. Read references/gate-details.md when a step below cites
a row number and you need that row's concrete check.
- Fill the
Immutable release-input descriptor: the promotion, the source, the contracts, the expected artifacts and check cells, and who may approve. Write no secret values. - Write every attempt and its evidence in the
External attempt and evidence ledger(the ledger: add to it, never rewrite it), never in the descriptor. - Freeze the artifact set: one finished, successful build per required member, from the recorded source. Record the set's identity (row 10).
- Test and promote that set. A later rebuild is a different set, however equivalent it looks; reject it.
Step 2: Judge it
Work every Readiness rows entry until it is evidenced, not applicable
with an approved disposition (the row's owner accepts the reason it does not
apply, and that acceptance is recorded under the descriptor's approver rule),
or blocking. In the descriptor's Status column, pass is evidenced,
fail is blocking, and a pending or inconclusive row is neither and
holds the verdict at inconclusive until it resolves, unless a fail row
already makes it not ready.
- Install, start, or load each member through the paths a real consumer uses. Passing checks on the source tree are not evidence about the artifact.
- REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: invoke
verification-before-completion. Run every check that protects this promotion over its expected inventory, then compare that inventory with what actually ran and account for every difference (row 11). - Exercise the cutover and the recovery, including the claimed RPO and RTO,
and observe what happens; do not infer it (rows 3, 13). Fill
Rollout and recovery. - Check the target: configuration, secrets, capacity, dependencies, and the order of the steps (row 6). Verify that each is present and has the expected shape; never print a value.
- Tie the rollout control to the assurance, migration, or release policy
that owns it (rows 5, 12). If there is no such policy, the row is blocking;
for a bounded feature,
rollout-controlsdrafts one for its owner to accept. Never invent a policy or lower one. - If the promotion is an expansion or a full release, attach the evidence observed in the prior stage.
- Account for the consumers (rows 7, 8, 15: release notes, breaking changes, and package obligations). If the release is a package, install the packed artifact into a clean, representative consumer before publishing anything.
Step 3: Decide
- Record a decision (its disposition) for every deviation in
Deviations(row 14). Lowering a check so the frozen set passes is a new assurance decision, not a release fix. - Write the
Verdict, naming the identities it is bound to: release input, artifact set, terminal evidence (the complete ledger), approval, and evidence freshness. - Recompute every identity immediately before any decision. If any has changed, reopen the decision.
Present the verdict and the choice, then end the turn:
Release candidate {{artifact-set identity}} → {{target}} Verdict: {{ready for the target | ready with accepted deviations | not ready | inconclusive}} — {{n}} gates evidenced, {{n}} deviations owned, rollback {{state}} 1. Promote this exact set 2. Hold 3. Cancel Recommendation: {{1 only when ready or ready with accepted deviations, otherwise 2}} — {{one sentence}}.- Promote nothing until the user names one of the three. The promotion then runs as its own authorized action, never on the strength of the verdict.
Gotchas
- Step 2.6's prior-stage evidence has to be captured while that stage is live. A rollout that expands on its own schedule — a percentage ramp, a timed cohort — has already moved by the time anyone looks, and the expansion is then approved against evidence nobody observed.
- A row recorded as not applicable counts the same as an evidenced one in a bare tally of checks, which is why Step 3.4 presents "gates evidenced" and "deviations owned" as separate numbers. Collapsing them into one hides how much of the release nobody checked.
Hard stops
- The release tests ran on the source tree, or on a different or incomplete artifact set.
- The release-input, artifact-set, terminal-evidence, or verdict identity is missing, stale, incomplete, or changed.
- Any required cell, evidence, or change is missing, duplicated, skipped or rejected with only a generic reason, unresolved, unowned, out of order, or beyond its bound.
- A decommission is partial, failed, awaiting validation, failed validation, or unresolved.
- The rollback names only the source, not a restorable artifact together with the data and config state to restore.
- The fixer, builder, or deployer accepts an unapproved deviation on their own.
- “Ready” is treated as authority to deploy or publish.
Common mistakes
- Calling a bare feature flag a rollout plan, or calling a recovery promise with no stated bound a rollback.
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.

