convex-launch-readiness
Skill68 starsChanged 15 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Run every Convex audit (authz, reviewer, advisor, insights) into one scored, deduped readiness report with an ordered fix plan — Lighthouse for your backend.
6 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- convex/agent-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- moltbot/molthubedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- clawdbot/clawdhubedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- openclaw/clawhubedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- FabienGreard/TouchGrassBarword for word, first seen Sep 8, 2026
- getsentry/fridayword for word, first seen Aug 28, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use convex-acquire-domain, convex-check-updates 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.
FabienGreardSkillconvex-acquire-domain
Find and buy a domain for the current Convex app through Convex, then bind it (labs; spend action).
Also in 4 projects that use this
FabienGreardSkillconvex-check-updates
Check the current app's pinned Convex components against recommended versions and upgrade them behind a build gate.
Also in 4 projects that use this
openclawSkillclawhub-ban-appeals
Review ClawHub account-ban appeals, distinguish bans from moderation holds or blocked releases, and prepare an evidence-backed moderation decision. Route validated scanner inaccuracies to clawhub-clawscan.
Also in 3 projects that use this
openclawSkillclawhub-clawscan
Investigate ClawScan health alerts, diagnose scanner or ClawHub integration failures, prepare operational repairs, and route validated verdict inaccuracies upstream. Account ban appeals use clawhub-ban-appeals.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +8 more from openclaw
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 3
- convex/agent-skills★ 68100% same
- FabienGreard/TouchGrassBar★ 5100% same
- getsentry/friday★ 0100% same
Edited · 3
- openclaw/clawhub★ 9.6k100% same
- clawdbot/clawdhub★ 9.5k100% same
- moltbot/molthub★ 9.5k100% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- convex-addSkill
- convex-advisorSkill
- convex-agentSkill
- convex-authSkill
- convex-authzSkill
- convex-backupSkill
- convex-billingSkill
- convex-costSkill
- convex-create-componentSkill
- convex-cronsSkill
- convex-deploy-guardSkill
- convex-designSkill
- convex-docsSkill
- convex-domainsSkill
- convex-envSkill
- convex-expertSkill
- convex-explain-appSkill
- convex-improve-convex-pluginSkill
- convex-insightsSkill
- convex-migrate-rehearseSkill
- convex-migrateSkill
- convex-monitorSkill
- convex-optimizeSkill
- convex-quickstartSkill
- convex-reviewerSkill
- convex-seedSkill
- convex-self-healSkill
- convex-sentinelSkill
- convexSkill
- convex-suggestSkill
- convex-testSkill
- convex-verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 5 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
5
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
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
- Common: line 15
RUN THE PASSES, each emitting findings on the bus:
- Common: line 20
Run independent passes concurrently.
- Common: line 25
Never claim more coverage than was run: the report header lists which passes ran, which were skipped and why.
- Common: line 32
Every finding carries its fixCapability.
- Common: line 34
Never claim more than was run: header lists ran/skipped passes.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
<!-- GENERATED from convex-agents content/capabilities/launch-readiness.json — do not edit by hand. -->Launch-readiness report
Readiness is not one check — it's the union of the checks, deduped, ranked, and scored. This capability is pure composition over the findings bus (specs/finding.schema.json): it runs each audit capability, normalizes their outputs into one report (specs/finding-report.schema.json), computes an auditable score, and — because every finding names a fixCapability — hands the user a prioritized, actionable punch list instead of four separate reports. It fixes nothing itself; it decides WHAT to fix and in what order, then dispatches to the fixers.
Workflow
- GUARD + SCOPE: deploy-guard classifies the target (local-anonymous / dev / preview / prod); announce it. Detect what's assessable — is there a convex/ dir, a deployed deployment with traffic, an auth foundation? Skip passes whose preconditions aren't met and SAY which were skipped (a skipped pass is not a pass).
- RUN THE PASSES, each emitting findings on the bus:
- convex-authz — the authz scan (identity-from-arg, missing ownership, PII leak, parent-ref-on-write). Always runnable on code.
- convex-reviewer — validators, indexes-not-filter, idiom, error handling. Always runnable on code.
- convex-advisor — live read-limit / OCC evidence (only if a deployment with traffic exists; else record 'skipped: no traffic').
- convex-insights — recent failures from logs (only if a deployment exists). Run independent passes concurrently; each returns findings, not fixes.
- NORMALIZE + DEDUPE: collect all findings into one report. Set each finding's
identityfield to a normalized function/table key (e.g.messages:list) that is the SAME whether the pass reported a code-locus or a deployment-locus for that function — so the SAME defect seen from two loci (reviewer flags a missing index at code-locus, advisor flags its read-limit symptom at deployment-locus) collapses to ONE via the bus's (class, identity) dedup and isn't double-counted in the score. Keep the higher-confidence source. Drop nothing silently; a pass that errored/was skipped is a stated coverage gap, not a clean result. - SCORE, auditable: start at 100; subtract per CONFIRMED finding by severity (high −15, med −5, low −1), floor at 0; print the exact formula and the per-class breakdown so the number is reproducible, not a vibe. plausible-only findings are listed as candidates but do NOT move the score (evidence-not-vibes). A deployment/traffic-less run reports a code-only score and says so.
- REPORT: the score, then findings ranked by severity, each with its evidence, its locus, and the fixCapability + a one-line fix note. Group by 'blockers' (high) / 'should-fix' (med) / 'nice-to-have' (low). End with the ordered fix plan: which capability to run next, in what order (authz/data-loss first, then perf/scale, then idiom/observability).
- DISPATCH on request: for each finding the user accepts, invoke its fixCapability (convex-authz, convex-reviewer's fixers, migrate-rehearse for schema changes, suggest for component swaps). After fixes, RE-RUN the affected passes and show the score delta — the readiness number is only meaningful if it moves when you fix things.
- Never claim more coverage than was run: the report header lists which passes ran, which were skipped and why. A green score on a code-only run is 'code looks ready', not 'production-verified'.
Rules
- Compose, don't re-implement: run the existing audit capabilities and aggregate their bus findings — never re-derive an authz or perf check inline.
- The score counts CONFIRMED findings only, by severity, with the formula printed; plausible findings are candidates that don't move the number.
- Normalize each finding's locus to a function/table identity before dedup (map deployment functionId ↔ code file:line) so one defect seen from two loci collapses to one and isn't double-scored; keep the higher-confidence source; drop nothing silently.
- Every finding carries its fixCapability; the report ends with an ORDERED fix plan (data-loss/authz first, then scale, then idiom/observability).
- Re-run affected passes after fixes and show the score delta — a readiness number that doesn't move when you fix things is theater.
- Never claim more than was run: header lists ran/skipped passes; a code-only run yields a code-only score, explicitly labeled.
- This is a read + aggregate + dispatch pass; fixes happen in the fixer capabilities, gated by their own consent/deploy-target rules.
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.

