agentleFS
govctl-orggovctl-org/govctl/.claude/skills/discuss/SKILL.md

discuss

Skill276 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub

Explore a governance design, resolve ambiguity, and draft RFC or ADR artifacts without implementation

31 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use execute, 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.
  • sahinSkill

    execute

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • BlockSkill

    plan

    Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • dubwoahSkill

    ask

    Answer questions about the codebase without generating or modifying any code. Use when the user wants to understand how something works, find where something is defined, or explore the project structure. Invoked with /ask.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Hugging FaceSkill

    implement

    Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    report

    Turn an exploration (threads, findings, charts) into a single Markdown report — note, blog post, executive summary, KPI dashboard, slide brief, or multi-section analytical report, with embedded charts.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • NVIDIASkill

    research

    Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 28 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read relevant artifacts with show.

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not write code or create Work Items.

    line 27
  3. Very specific:

    Do not perform lifecycle or destructive operations (accept, reject, finalize, advance, bump, deprecate, supersede, delete).

    line 28
  4. Very specific:

    Do not issue raw VCS commands.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Ask when requirements conflict, a breaking consequence is unacknowledged, or evidence cannot resolve a material ambiguity.

    line 33
  6. Distinctive:

    Not every discussion needs an artifact.

    line 45
  7. Very specific:

    Start from constraints in existing RFCs and ADRs, then compare plausible options.

    line 49
  8. Very specific:

    follow rfc-writer for Clauses and adr-writer for decisions, with alternatives before the conclusion.

    line 55
  9. Very specific:

    use root govctl clause commands and [[artifact-id]] references.

    line 57
  10. Distinctive:

    leave out implementation details that are not an external contract.

    line 58
  11. Very specific:

    Run govctl check after edits and the matching reviewer (rfc-reviewer, adr-reviewer) before calling a draft ready.

    line 62
  12. Distinctive:

    Leave artifacts in draft or proposed state until the user authorizes a transition.

    line 75

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Design Discussion

Understand $ARGUMENTS, relate it to existing governance, and draft only the artifacts the discussion justifies.

Discovery

govctl status
govctl search <topic>
govctl rfc list
govctl adr list

Read relevant artifacts with show; add --history only when prior content matters. Use govctl <resource> --help for current syntax.

Hard Stops

  • Do not write code or create Work Items.
  • Do not perform lifecycle or destructive operations (accept, reject, finalize, advance, bump, deprecate, supersede, delete); they belong to spec or gov.
  • Do not issue raw VCS commands; use commit.
  • RFCs own obligations, ADRs own design rationale, and Work Items own execution scope. Do not use one to fill gaps in another.
  • Ask when requirements conflict, a breaking consequence is unacknowledged, or evidence cannot resolve a material ambiguity.

Classify The Outcome

Question answeredResult
What behavior or invariant must be true?RFC or RFC amendment
Why was one design chosen over others?ADR
What does an existing artifact mean?Clarify in conversation
What work should be done now?Hand off to gov; no Work Item here

Not every discussion needs an artifact.

Explore And Draft

Start from constraints in existing RFCs and ADRs, then compare plausible options. Ask only questions whose answers change the design. Use decision-analysis for high-risk trade-offs.

When drafting:

  • follow rfc-writer for Clauses and adr-writer for decisions, with alternatives before the conclusion;
  • use root govctl clause commands and [[artifact-id]] references;
  • leave out implementation details that are not an external contract; and
  • separate choices that must be settled now from those coding can settle better, and leave the latter out of RFC and ADR drafts.

Run govctl check after edits and the matching reviewer (rfc-reviewer, adr-reviewer) before calling a draft ready. Resolve critical findings first.

Done When

The final response covers:

  • the problem, constraints, options, and recommendation;
  • drafts created or changed, with their status;
  • open questions, risks, and validation and review results; and
  • the handoff: keep discussing, spec for clarifications, gov for behavior-changing amendments, or commit.

Leave artifacts in draft or proposed state until the user authorizes a transition.

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.