agentleFS
hollandkevinthollandkevint/thinkhaven-method-kit/skills/ai-graduation/SKILL.md

ai-graduation

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

7-move decision gate for AI deployment. Prevents early promise from becoming unquestioned infrastructure. Based on Stuart Winter-Tear's AI Graduation Path. Activates on "AI deployment", "graduation", "should we scale this AI", "pilot to production", "AI governance", "prove this works", or "when is this ready?"

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    No access to systems it shouldn't touch

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    If the AI is running without clear boundaries, stop here.

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    If you can't measure it, you can't evaluate it.

    line 42
  4. Distinctive:

    Test set with ground truth (known correct answers)

    line 49

≈ “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

The Principle

A pilot does not earn authority because it can be repeated. It earns authority when the organisation understands the conditions under which it holds and the conditions under which it breaks.

The 7 Moves

Walk through each move as a decision gate. The user must demonstrate readiness at each gate before advancing. Skipping gates is the primary failure mode.

Move 1: Contain

Gate question: "Is this AI application running in a bounded, observable environment?"

Requirements:

  • Defined scope (what it does, what it doesn't)
  • Clear boundary conditions (when does it apply, when doesn't it)
  • Human in the loop for all consequential outputs
  • No access to systems it shouldn't touch

If the AI is running without clear boundaries, stop here. Containment first.

Move 2: Instrument

Gate question: "Can you measure what this AI is actually doing?"

Requirements:

  • Logging of inputs, outputs, and decisions
  • Baseline metrics established (accuracy, latency, cost, error rate)
  • Ability to compare AI decisions against human decisions
  • Monitoring for drift (is performance changing over time?)

If you can't measure it, you can't evaluate it. Instrument before you trust.

Move 3: Verify

Gate question: "Have you tested this against known-good answers?"

Requirements:

  • Test set with ground truth (known correct answers)
  • Performance measured against human baseline
  • Edge cases explicitly tested (what happens at the boundaries?)
  • Failure modes documented (when does it break? how does it fail?)

Move 4: Prove

Gate question: "Can you demonstrate this works in the conditions where you plan to use it?"

Requirements:

  • Tested in production-like environment (not just dev/staging)
  • Tested with real users (not just the team that built it)
  • Performance validated under realistic load and data quality
  • Stakeholders have seen it work AND seen it fail

CRITICAL: Proving means showing both success AND failure conditions. A demo that only shows the happy path proves nothing.

Move 5: Narrow

Gate question: "Have you defined the specific, limited scope for production use?"

Requirements:

  • Explicit scope: what decisions this AI is authorized to make
  • Explicit exclusions: what decisions require human override
  • Escalation path: what happens when the AI encounters something outside its scope
  • Rollback plan: how do you revert if it goes wrong

Move 6: Widen

Gate question: "Based on proven performance in the narrow scope, what's the next increment?"

Requirements:

  • Evidence from narrow deployment supports expansion
  • New scope is an incremental extension, not a leap
  • New edge cases identified and tested
  • Monitoring from Move 2 is still active and shows stable performance

Move 7: Standardise

Gate question: "Is this AI application ready to become organizational infrastructure?"

Requirements:

  • Documentation exists for operators (not just builders)
  • Training exists for users
  • SLA defined and monitored
  • Incident response procedure documented
  • Regular review cadence established (quarterly minimum)

Output

# AI Graduation Assessment: [AI Application Name]
Date: [date]

## Current Position
Move [N] of 7: [Move Name]

## Gate Assessment
| Move | Status | Evidence | Gap |
|------|--------|----------|-----|
| 1. Contain | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |
| 2. Instrument | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |
| 3. Verify | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |
| 4. Prove | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |
| 5. Narrow | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |
| 6. Widen | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |
| 7. Standardise | [Pass/Fail/Partial] | [evidence] | [what's missing] |

## Recommendation
[Which move to focus on next and what needs to happen]

## Warning Signs
[Anything that suggests the organization is trying to skip gates]

Based on Stuart Winter-Tear's AI Graduation Path.

Next step

Gate assessed → run decision-brief to write the call up, or codify to record it.


Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Full Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven

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.