agentleFS
hidekituxhidekitux/skills/skills/process/deliver-change/SKILL.md

deliver-change

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Deliver a governed Change Issue end to end from its verified plan through a reviewed Pull Request and cohesive final report. Use when asked to take a Change Issue to a finished, reviewed change as one coordinated run, or when a plan exists and implementation, pull request, and review should proceed without selecting each skill manually.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

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

    Run the planning phase with plan-issue, or confirm the plan already posted on the Issue, and record its URL.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not create the Issue: a governed Change Issue already exists by definition.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Stop and report when the plan, scope boundary, or branch is unavailable or when a phase cannot produce its artifact.

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Run the phases in order. A phase is complete only when its primitive's artifact exists with evidence.

    line 29
  5. Very specific:

    External mutation authority: only create-pr creates the Pull Request, pausing for user confirmation.

    line 42
  6. Distinctive:

    Handoff rule: every phase hands its artifact to the next owning primitive.

    line 44
  7. Distinctive:

    Use plain, active, evidence-backed prose in the final handoff.

    line 55

≈ “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

Deliver Change

Todo List

  1. in progress: Resolve the governing Change Issue, its verified plan, the base revision, and the in-scope boundary.
  2. Run the planning phase with plan-issue, or confirm the plan already posted on the Issue, and record its URL.
  3. Execute the plan with implement-issue and record per-task evidence.
  4. Open and review the change with create-pr and review-pr, then rework with fix-pr until the review loop terminates.
  5. Complete the list only when every phase artifact exists and one cohesive final report is delivered; hand off the Issue URL, Pull Request URL, and per-phase evidence.

Keep exactly one item in progress. Mark an item complete only after its stated evidence exists: a file, a command result, an Issue or Pull Request URL, or another observable artifact. Add or revise items when the agreed scope changes. Use the host's native Todo List when available; otherwise maintain this list as a Markdown checklist in the conversation.

Resolve and Guard

  • Resolve the repository, the linked Change Issue, the verified plan, and the Issue-backed branch created from the upstream base. Do not guess a plan; when the Issue has no plan, derive the tasks from its Scope and Acceptance criteria only.
  • Route every phase through its owning primitive. This entry point coordinates phases and tracks a single progress model; it never plans, implements, opens Pull Requests, or reviews by itself.
  • Do not create the Issue: a governed Change Issue already exists by definition. If no Change Issue exists, stop and report instead of inventing one.
  • Preserve approval boundaries: create-pr opens the Pull Request only after user confirmation, implement-issue edits only in-scope files from the verified plan, and fix-pr edits only what a review finding or that same boundary justifies.
  • Stop and report when the plan, scope boundary, or branch is unavailable or when a phase cannot produce its artifact; never continue past an unverified handoff.

Route

Run the phases in order. A phase is complete only when its primitive's artifact exists with evidence.

PhasePrimitiveRead-onlyContinue whenArtifact
Planplan-issueyes (posts the plan comment)plan posted as an Issue commentverified plan
Implementimplement-issueno (edits in-scope files only)per-task evidence recordedin-scope changes
Pull requestcreate-prnoPull Request opened after user confirmationPull Request URL
Reviewreview-pryes (posts the findings)findings returnedseverity-ordered findings
Fixfix-prno (edits what findings justify)fixed head pushed and body syncedpublished fixed head

State and authority contract

  • One progress model: maintain one Todo List for the whole run and map each primitive's own progress into it; the user never tracks a separate list per phase.
  • External mutation authority: only create-pr creates the Pull Request, pausing for user confirmation; fix-pr updates that Pull Request but never creates one. implement-issue edits only files inside the verified plan's in-scope boundary.
  • Read-only phases: plan and review never change repository files, Git state, or work items. Plan posts only the plan-issue plan comment, whose marker lets the Project workflow move the Issue to Planned. Review posts only the review-pr findings on the Pull Request or in the linked conversation.
  • Handoff rule: every phase hands its artifact to the next owning primitive; an incomplete artifact returns to its owning primitive for rework, never to the entry point's own logic.
  • Loop termination: when review-pr returns findings, send them to fix-pr, which fixes, validates, and pushes on the same branch in one pass, then re-review. Terminate when review-pr reports no blocking findings, or after two complete rework passes; then stop and report the unresolved findings with evidence instead of continuing.

Validate and Handoff

  • Run the target repository's prescribed checks after implementation and record every command and result; never describe an unrun check as passing. When the repository prescribes none, run its documented test and lint commands and report that no aggregate check exists. In the hidekitux/skills repository, run mise run validate:all, plus mise run validate:skill-creator when available.
  • Deliver one cohesive final report: the achieved outcome, the plan URL, phase artifacts and their URLs, validation commands and results, the governing Issue's Project Status, and any remaining risks.
  • Hand off only when the change is implemented, validated, and reviewed. Do not merge, release, or expand scope unless the user separately requests it.

Writing quality

Use plain, active, evidence-backed prose in the final handoff. Keep headings in sentence case and name the file, command, or output behind each repository claim.

Choose the plain word over an inflated or Latinate one: write use rather than utilize and is rather than serves as.

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.