agentleFS
Sign inStart free
fifersheepfifersheep/flow/skills/flow-report/SKILL.md

flow-report

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Flow phase 7 (reporting, full mode). Normally invoked via /flow. Writes report.md with real evidence, opens the PR, then holds at gate 2 for merge approval.

  • Commits and pushes

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. lorenliu13/claude-code-for-hydrology★ 67same name
    2. fancylight/skills★ 1same 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.

  • In this repository9 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Follow-ups — advisory review findings + anything deferred.

    line 13

≈ “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

Flow — report (gate 2)

  1. Write report.md from the plugin's templates/report.md:
    • Changed vs plan — from plan.md tasks + Progress.
    • Deviations — copy workflow.md ## Deviations, expand each with why.
    • Evidence — paste the ACTUAL verify output and outcome-verification results captured in review. Re-run rather than claim from memory.
    • Follow-ups — advisory review findings + anything deferred.
  2. Open the PR (gh pr create if a remote exists; otherwise present the description and note the merge will be local). Description generated from the artifact trail: intent (plan.md), approach summary, deviations, test evidence, links to the task folder artifacts. Once it is open, move the ticket to the pr-open status per the plugin's templates/tracker-sync.md and record tracker-synced (skipped silently with no tracker or no ticket-id; a failed move is recorded and announced, never fatal). On a gate-2 iteration the ticket is already there — don't re-move it.
  3. Gate 2. Present to the user: report.md path, PR link, one-paragraph summary. Ask approve-merge / request-changes (AskUserQuestion). Changes → step the phase BACKWARD to implementation (a backward transition is always legal; the reporting lockdown blocks code edits by design — never work around it), make the change, re-verify, come forward through code-review (the prior reviewer pass stands for small visual/constant tweaks; re-dispatch only if logic changed), update report evidence, push, ask again. Iterate as many times as the user needs.
  4. On approval (never before): append - YYYY-MM-DD gate 2: merge approved by user, set phase: wind-down, update updated + Next action, announce, invoke the flow-wrap skill.

The validator blocks wind-down without the gate-2 line, and blocks code edits during reporting. Fix the process, never the guardrail.

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.

Check your setup, free