bump-rfc
Skill73 starsChanged 6 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Transition an Incan RFC from one status to the next. Use when the user asks to promote, advance, or finalize an RFC, or says /bump-rfc. Handles Draft → Planned, Planned → In Progress, and In Progress → Implemented transitions.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-learningSkill
- closeoutSkill
- create-github-issueSkill
- create-planSkill
- create-pr-descriptionSkill
- fixSkill
- flag-compiler-bugSkill
- fleet-auditSkill
- hello-worldSkill
- loopSkill
- orchestrate-parallel-workSkill
- ralph-loopSkill
- review-and-fixSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-code-smellsSkill
- review-docs-claimsSkill
- review-incan-source-qualitySkill
- review-orchestrateSkill
- review-rfcSkill
- review-rust-proseSkill
- review-scopeSkill
- reviewSkill
- review-test-styleSkill
- start-workSkill
- testSkill
- write-commit-messageSkill
- write-rfcSkill
- yeet-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 19
Read the RFC's current Status: field, then follow the matching section below.
- Very specific: line 42
Only ## Unresolved questions: rename → ## Design Decisions.
- Very specific: line 43
Only ## Design Decisions: leave as-is.
- Very specific: line 72
When an implementation PR exists, record its link in RFC PR and retain other implementation PR links.
- Very specific: line 74
After the ## Layers affected section, add a ## Progress Checklist section.
- Very specific: line 124
Update the header: Status: Planned → Status: In Progress.
- Very specific: line 153
If the RFC uses Shipped in:, set Shipped in: vX.Y.
- Very specific: line 160
Ensure the implementation PR body includes a closing keyword for the issue, for example Closes #<NNN>.
- Very specific: line 171
Add an entry to workspaces/docs-site/docs/release_notes/<vX_Y>.md following the project's release notes style:
≈ “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
Bump RFC — Incan Project
Overview
RFCs move through four statuses. Each transition requires specific file edits, GitHub actions, and prerequisites.
| Status | Meaning |
Draft | Design and/or review in flight (may have open questions, or none while awaiting review before Planned) |
Planned | Design settled; ready for implementation |
In Progress | Active implementation underway |
Implemented | Implementation complete and included in a merge-ready PR, or already shipped |
Read the RFC's current Status: field, then follow the matching section below.
Draft → Planned
Prerequisites
All answered: nothing open under ## Unresolved questions; settled record under ## Design Decisions (see review-rfc → Planned+ rule). No fake questions.
Before bumping, verify:
- No open bullets under
## Unresolved questions(if present). No disguised open items under Design Decisions. - At least one review round has been completed (use
/review-rfcif not done). - GitHub issue exists and is linked in the RFC header.
- User has confirmed the bump (ask if unclear).
- Discuss any open design decisions with the user.
File changes
Outcome: Planned+ rule — no ## Unresolved questions; tail is ## Design Decisions only.
- Both
## Design Decisionsand## Unresolved questions: merge remainder into Design Decisions, drop## Unresolved questions. - Only
## Unresolved questions: rename →## Design Decisions. - Only
## Design Decisions: leave as-is. - Strip EOF
<!-- Rename this section to "Design Decisions"... -->if present. Status: Draft→Status: Planned.
GitHub actions
# Remove RFC label, add feature label
gh api repos/dannys-code-corner/incan/issues/<NNN>/labels/RFC -X DELETE
gh api repos/dannys-code-corner/incan/issues/<NNN>/labels -X POST --input - <<'EOF'
{"labels":["feature"]}
EOF
# Post a status comment
gh issue comment <NNN> --repo dannys-code-corner/incan --body \
"RFC has moved to **Planned** status. Design is settled; implementation can begin."Planned → In Progress
Prerequisites
- At least one implementation PR has been opened or a contributor has picked up the work.
- User has confirmed the bump.
File changes
When an implementation PR exists, record its link in RFC PR and retain other implementation PR links. If work has started without an implementation PR, leave RFC PR as — until one is opened. Never use a proposal or documentation-only PR for this field.
After the ## Layers affected section, add a ## Progress Checklist section. An RFC describes the end state, so a delivery plan with phases belongs on the GitHub issue, not in the RFC.
## Progress Checklist — fine-grained - [ ] items, grouped by area. These will be ticked as PRs land. Example shape:
## Progress Checklist
### Spec / design
- [ ] Lock down edge cases for `<X>` and add to "Design Decisions".
### Parser / AST
- [ ] Lexer: emit new token for `<keyword>`.
- [ ] Parser: parse `<construct>` in declaration/expression position.
- [ ] AST: represent as `<NodeKind>` with correct span.
- [ ] Formatter: round-trip `<construct>` stably.
### Typechecker
- [ ] Validate at declaration sites.
- [ ] Resolve in expression positions.
- [ ] Error: `<diagnostic name>` for invalid usage.
### Lowering / IR
- [ ] Lower `<construct>` to `<IrNode>`.
### Emission
- [ ] Emit correct Rust for `<construct>`.
### Stdlib / Runtime
- [ ] Declare in `stdlib/<module>.incn` (if applicable).
- [ ] Wire Rust backing type in the owning component's facet, `loaves/stdlib/<component>/rust/` (if applicable).
### Tests
- [ ] Existing check cases extended for accepted syntax and valid usage.
- [ ] Existing check cases extended for invalid usage → correct diagnostic code.
- [ ] Existing behavior cases extended for `<construct>` in expression position and observable execution.
- [ ] Smallest relevant case/area selectors pass during development; affected whole families pass at commit points, per `workspaces/contracts/README.md`.
### Docs
- [ ] Update relevant docs-site pages.
- [ ] Add release notes entry.- Update the header:
Status: Planned→Status: In Progress.
GitHub actions
Post the implementation plan to the GitHub issue, where delivery is tracked:
gh issue comment <NNN> --repo dannys-code-corner/incan --body \
"RFC has moved to **In Progress**. Implementation plan below; the RFC carries the progress checklist.
<the implementation plan and checklist>"In Progress → Implemented
Prerequisites
- All
- [ ]items in the Progress Checklist are- [x]. - Implementation is complete and covered by a merge-ready PR, or already merged to
main. - Required local and/or CI verification has passed for the implementation PR.
- Release version is known.
- User has confirmed the bump.
File changes
- Update the header:
Status: In Progress→Status: Implemented. - Fill the release field with the actual Incan release version:
- If the RFC uses
Shipped in:, setShipped in: vX.Y. - If the RFC uses
Implemented version:, setImplemented version: X.Y.Z.
- If the RFC uses
- Move the RFC document into
workspaces/docs-site/docs/RFCs/closed/implemented/and keep the same filename. - Optionally rename
## Progress Checklist→## Implementation logto signal it is historical rather than active.
GitHub actions
Ensure the implementation PR body includes a closing keyword for the issue, for example Closes #<NNN>. Do not manually close the issue as part of the RFC bump; the PR merge should close it.
Optionally post a traceability comment while the PR is still open:
gh issue comment <NNN> --repo dannys-code-corner/incan --body \
"RFC has moved to **Implemented** in the implementation PR. Implementation is complete and targeted for vX.Y; the issue will close when the PR merges."Release notes
Add an entry to workspaces/docs-site/docs/release_notes/<vX_Y>.md following the project's release notes style:
- **<Area>**: <One-line description of the feature> (RFC NNN, #<issue>)Quick reference
| From | To | Key file change | Key GitHub action |
Draft | Planned | Planned+ rule (File changes above); update Status | Relabel RFC → feature |
Planned | In Progress | Add Progress Checklist; update Status | Post plan as issue comment |
In Progress | Implemented | Update Status; fill release field; move file to closed/implemented/; optionally rename checklist to log | Ensure PR closes issue; optional traceability comment |
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.

