agentleFS
cheetah-tradecheetah-trade/claude-code-team-kit/skills/release-checklist/SKILL.md

release-checklist

Skill0 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub

Check a change before it ships: tests and build pass on the final version, the change is described, what was verified live versus not, a rollback path, notes updated; then report honestly what works and what is still planned. Use before merging or deploying any change, before saying a task is done, and when writing release notes.

31 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use playtest-report, soak-test 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.
  • CoralGameSkill

    playtest-report

    Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    soak-test

    Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    team-live-ops

    Orchestrate the live-ops team for post-launch content planning: coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, writer, and narrative-director to design and plan a season, event, or live content update.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • CoralGameSkill

    team-polish

    Orchestrate the polish team: coordinates performance-analyst, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to optimize, polish, and harden a feature or area for release quality.

    Also in 14 projects that use this

  • +4 more from lilangMax
  • +4 more from CoralGame

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    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:

    Use before a change merges or deploys, and before any report that says "done".

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Tests: run on the final version, the commit that ships, not an earlier one.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Nothing private: no secrets, tokens, customer data or personal details in the diff, logs, screenshots or notes.

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    Works: only what was verified, with the evidence next to it.

    line 33
  5. Distinctive:

    Never "done" because the code is written, never "tested" when only part of the suite ran, never "works in production" when only staging was …

    line 36
  6. Distinctive:

    Check it where it runs: the screen, the logs, the error tracker, for the first minutes after the deploy.

    line 54
  7. Distinctive:

    If it breaks, roll back first and investigate after.

    line 55

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 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 checklist

Use before a change merges or deploys, and before any report that says "done". The point is a report the reviewer can trust: what works is shown, what is not done is listed. Pair it with approvals (the human yes for the merge or deploy) and handoff (for whatever is left).

Checklist

  1. Tests run on the final version, the commit that ships, not an earlier one. Give the command and the result ("212 passed, 0 failed"). New behaviour has a test; if not, say why.
  2. Build: the production build passes from a clean checkout, not only the dev server.
  3. Acceptance criteria: each one with how it was shown (a test, a screenshot, a command's output). Unmet ones are listed, not left out.
  4. The change described: a few lines for the reviewer: what changes for users, what changes in the code, anything risky (migrations, configuration, permissions), anything removed.
  5. Verified live versus not: three lists. Checked in the running app (say where: local, staging, production); checked only by tests; not checked. "Should work" belongs in the third list.
  6. Rollback: how to undo it and how long that takes (revert the commit, redeploy the previous build, turn off the flag). For a migration or a data change, say whether it can be undone at all; if not, take a backup first and say so in the approval request.
  7. Notes updated: changelog or release notes, the status file (what works, known limits), the docs for changed behaviour, the decision log if a decision was made.
  8. Nothing private: no secrets, tokens, customer data or personal details in the diff, logs, screenshots or notes.
  9. Approval: merging and deploying wait for a human yes on this exact version (approvals).

Report honestly

  • Works: only what was verified, with the evidence next to it.
  • Not verified: and why ("no staging access for the payment provider", "needs a real card").
  • Planned: what is left, as backlog items with acceptance criteria, not as promises in prose.
  • Never "done" because the code is written, never "tested" when only part of the suite ran, never "works in production" when only staging was checked.

Example report

Partial refund on the order page, commit <commit>
Works (staging, checked by hand): refund of part of an order; history row; inline error over the total.
Tests only: failed-refund path (provider stubbed). `npm test`: 212 passed. Build from clean checkout: passes.
Not verified: a real refund in the provider's live mode; needs the billing lead.
Rollback: revert the merge commit; no migration; about 5 minutes.
Notes: CHANGELOG and the refunds guide on the docs site updated; STATUS lists "refund emails" as not done.
Planned: refund email to the customer (backlog item filed, wording needs approval).
Waiting for: approval to merge this commit.

After it ships

  • Check it where it runs: the screen, the logs, the error tracker, for the first minutes after the deploy.
  • If it breaks, roll back first and investigate after; write what happened in the status file.
  • Leftover work becomes backlog items (backlog-item); unfinished work gets a handoff note.

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.