deliver
Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Carries one feature, bug, issue, branch, or PR through verified delivery. Use when asked to deliver or ship a work item end to end, such as getting it merged or deployed, or when the user runs /deliver.
- Commits and pushes
28 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- GravionLabs/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- fullstackhouse/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- smarzban/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- zahidakhyar/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/agent-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/claudetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use prune, plan and 7 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.
matthewpSkillprune
Find and remove unused CSS in a Tideway project — classes defined in stylesheets but never referenced in markup. Use whenever the user wants to prune dead CSS, find unused styles or classes, clean up or slim a stylesheet, find orphaned BEM classes, or "tree-shake" hand-written CSS.
Also in 3 projects that use this
BlockSkillplan
Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.
Also in 5 projects that use this
SentrySkillspec
Produce a verified spec — problem, desired outcome, and acceptance criteria — before building. Use when given a GitHub/Linear issue link, when starting from a fuzzy in-conversation idea, or asked to "figure out what to do" / "scope this" / "what should I build" — whenever the *what* isn't yet pinned down. Grills the ambiguities, checks the premise against the code, and produces acceptance criteria you sign off on — then hands to design-first.
Also in 4 projects that use this
AWSSkillship
Finalize dev work on an issue branch — update docs, push, and open a PR.
Also in 5 projects that use this
AWSSkillwait-what
Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillbuild
Build the TypeSpec Rust emitter from source. Run this after cloning the repo, after pulling changes, or when TypeScript source files have been modified.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions28 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- frostney/known-good-route★ 068% same
Wrote their own version · 27
- google-gemini/gemini-managed-agents-templates★ 99same name
- domengabrovsek/agent-config★ 22same name
- domengabrovsek/claude★ 22same name
- domitriusclark/claude-skills★ 11same name
- coder-xieshijie/dev-skills★ 5same name
- AcKeskin/contexture★ 2same name
- andeeplus/aplus★ 2same name
- MarkTripoli/skills★ 2same name
- matiopala/skills★ 2same name
- dcguim/skills★ 1same name
17 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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- address-feedbackSkill
- codebase-auditSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- create-issueSkill
- create-prSkill
- delivery-waitSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- native-nostalgia-stackSkill
- project-structureSkill
- roadmap-reviewSkill
- software-engineering-excellenceSkill
- test-against-specSkill
- update-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 28 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 47
Use /implement for development and required-behavior gaps.
- Very specific: line 50
Use /create-pr for first publication and /update-pr for an existing PR.
- Distinctive: line 51
Keep the same work item and reuse its open PR through repairs.
- Very specific: line 57
Use /address-feedback to converge required reviews and current findings.
- Distinctive: line 86
Use required companion skills when available.
- Very specific: line 112
When only external transitions remain, such as CI, review automation or a deployment, park the work item: arm one wait for each awaited …
- Distinctive: line 120
When the session goes on to another work item, start it from the recorded result and handoff, not from this item's working context.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 28 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
Deliver
Own one work item's outcome through its selected endpoint. Enter from its actual state, reuse settled decisions and valid evidence, and keep the parent task active when a child skill returns a fixable failure or pending transition.
Resolve scope and endpoint
Infer the repository and work item from the request, issue, bug description,
confirmed idea, current branch or PR. Verify identities and existing work before
mutation. Use /create-issue only when tracking is requested or required; an
unfiled idea can go directly to /implement.
Honor an explicit endpoint: ready-to-merge, merged, or deployed. The default
is deployed to the project's configured default integration destination, which
may be production, staging, nightly or another established target. Read project
instructions, delivery documentation and actual workflows to identify it; do not
assume production or choose among ambiguous destinations.
A delivery request authorizes the in-scope development, validation, publication,
feedback handling and Git operations needed for its endpoint, including merge
and the configured integration path for deployed. Preserve explicit limits,
repository protections and existing authorization. An earlier endpoint does not
authorize later operations. Complete independent work before asking for a
specific unresolved destination, provider, new infrastructure, spending or other
material choice. Repair an existing integration workflow when an established
in-scope defect blocks delivery; do not replace its provider or invent a new
service as an incidental fix.
Coordinate the existing workflows
- Use
/implementfor development and required-behavior gaps. It owns running and inspecting the result, code review, specification testing and in-scope repair. Pass the agreed outcome and fidelity criteria, not just a mechanism. - Use
/create-prfor first publication and/update-prfor an existing PR. Keep the same work item and reuse its open PR through repairs. Reconcile uncertain writes before retrying; do not create a replacement PR merely because a call failed. If integration verification finds a required gap after merge, create a linked repair PR from the fresh default branch. Keep delivery active through its review, merge and integration verification; never rewrite merged history or try to update a closed PR. - Use
/address-feedbackto converge required reviews and current findings. Validate each finding against the agreed outcome; optional extras do not enlarge scope. Await pending checks and provider transitions through existing deterministic helpers. Inspect failures and route fixable causes through the development loop, then publish and verify the new exact head. - At
ready-to-merge, require the complete readiness contract defined byaddress-feedback's readiness references for the selected PR's exact head: all verified requirement gaps resolved, current behavior and project evidence, successful required CI and reviews, and completed required thread handling. For a native stack, require its complete-stack readiness, including every needed fix layer. Ready for review alone does not satisfy this endpoint. - For
mergedordeployed, recheck readiness and usegit-workflowto merge the authorized ordinary PR or complete native stack. Verify the resulting integrated revision. A partial prefix below a required fix layer is not done. - For
deployed, run or await the existing integration path, then verify its destination, delivered revision or artifact provenance, and the required behavior in that environment. When later commits are included, verify that the delivered revision contains the integrated change and that its acceptance evidence still applies. A green deployment job or merge alone is insufficient.
Delegated work runs through the same skills. A worker packet routes each step
it hands over through the skill that owns it, such as /implement,
/create-pr, /update-pr or /address-feedback. It never prescribes raw
publication or merge commands such as gh pr create or gh pr merge; those
bypass the skill's gates, native stack detection and readiness checks. Each
packet records the capability tier its lane runs on. Read
capability tiers
when you write a packet, run one, or receive a lane's escalation.
Use required companion skills when available; when one is unavailable, follow its reachable documented contract directly or report the specific missing capability. Do not invent a successful handoff. Reuse matching evidence for unchanged content, command, environment and requirements; rerun only missing or invalidated checks. Preserve independent review judgment.
Apply git-workflow's
default-branch health gate
before development starts and again before each merge. A default-branch repair
it calls for is a separate work item that comes before this one.
Integration delivery and release publication are separate outcomes. Never
invoke /create-release from this single-item loop or use a milestone release
as a substitute for integration delivery. A configured nightly integration can
satisfy deployed when its revision and behavior are verified. If the project
has only a release path and no identifiable integration destination, finish
independent work and ask for that concrete delivery decision.
Continue or finish
Continue through in-scope failures while a safe corrective action or useful investigation remains. When repeated attempts produce no new evidence or progress, reassess the cause and approach; escalate the specific remaining blocker after safe alternatives are exhausted. Do not loop unchanged probes, weaken acceptance or expand scope to manufacture progress.
When only external transitions remain, such as CI, review automation or a
deployment, park the work item: arm one wait for each awaited transition under
delivery-wait's running rules,
record resumable state, and end the turn. Resume from each returned result,
and arm the next wait before ending another turn. Never end a turn with a
transition still expected and nothing armed to resume it. If the host cannot
keep a wait armed, report the exact time or event to resume at.
When the session goes on to another work item, start it from the recorded result and handoff, not from this item's working context. Compact the context or start a fresh one at that boundary where the host allows it.
Finish only when the selected endpoint has observed evidence. An external blocker, unresolved material decision or needed authority can leave it incomplete; report the exact gap and next transition. Keep resumable state in the project's handoff convention. Return the work item, chosen endpoint, verified revision and destination when applicable, PR and integration evidence, and any remaining limitation. Match each completion claim to a returned result for that specific action and target. A successful merge does not confirm branch deletion: a deletion flag is a request, and deletion of an earlier branch says nothing about the repair branch. An acknowledgment likewise does not confirm cleanup or message delivery. Verify required outcomes; omit optional unconfirmed claims or label them unconfirmed, without implying failure. Apply this to the whole report, including tables and parenthetical remarks; see agent-writing for shared writing guidance.
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.

