release-readiness
Skill13 starsChanged 27 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Go / no-go gate before any deployment. Checks failure modes, rollback plan, cost, production bar, and definition of done. Trigger before releasing to any environment that carries real consequences.
48 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- voyager67/AgentFieldkittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- HumSaw/shipwright-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- RaditteAnggoro/skill-for-lazy-developertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nledford/engineering-review-boardtheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- pulsejet/memoriestheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-templatetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use dependency-cve-sweep, fleet-standard-adoption and 9 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.
berntpoppSkilldependency-cve-sweep
Use when handling Dependabot PRs, CodeQL/Trivy alerts, or doing a routine dependency/CVE sweep for this repo.
Also in 12 projects that use this
berntpoppSkillfleet-standard-adoption
Use when bringing this repo into compliance with a GeneFoundry fleet standard (tool-naming, response-envelope, container-hardening, versioning, MCP transport, or logging) or closing its tracking issue.
Also in 12 projects that use this
IgorGanapolskySkillci-failure-triage
Triage a CI / PR check failure by READING the failure body before forming any hypothesis. Triggered whenever a required check is red, a PR is BLOCKED, a merge won't land, or you're about to call a failure "transient", "flaky", "stale", or "orphaned". Prevents dismissing a real failure (e.g. real CodeQL security alerts) as noise.
Also in 14 projects that use this
VersoXBTSkillcode-quality-review
Perform structured code reviews enforcing quality standards, naming conventions, architecture patterns, and team agreements. Use when the user says 'review this code', 'code review', 'check quality', 'review my PR', 'what's wrong with this', 'improve this code', 'review before merge', 'peer review', or 'audit this'. Also triggers on 'code quality', 'review standards', 'enforce conventions', 'tech debt check', 'lint review', or when user completes a significant code change.
Also in 12 projects that use this
ffsshhttiikkSkillunit-testing
Unit testing best practices and patterns
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillsecurity-review
Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.
Also in 17 projects that use this
- +2 more from berntpopp
Other versions48 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 48
- dotnet/maui★ 23ksame name
- pulsejet/memories★ 3.9ksame name
- AIEraDev/Clypra★ 3.4ksame name
- jordanhubbard/nanolang★ 629same name
- petrkindlmann/qa-skills★ 209same name
- colasama/MahoShojo-Generator★ 167same name
- MRCalderon3D/everything-game-dev-code★ 105same name
- Azure/odinforazurelocal★ 20same name
- nledford/engineering-review-board★ 11same name
- z-Zihan/Evir★ 11same name
38 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 repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adk-expertSkill
- adversarial-gateSkill
- cloud-checkupSkill
- cloud-expertSkill
- cost-guardrailSkill
- cxo-oversightSkill
- delivery-orchestratorSkill
- domain-validatorSkill
- frontend-performance-auditSkill
- get-it-doneSkill
- github-managerSkill
- governance-guardrailSkill
- mcp-server-scaffoldSkill
- operating-model-bootstrapSkill
- plugin-submissionSkill
- product-ownerSkill
- pr-reviewerSkill
- release-managerSkill
- sitrepSkill
- spec-first-deliverySkill
- system-performance-guardrailSkill
- test-strategySkill
- the-architectSkill
- using-the-harnessSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 47 edited versions we read keep these.
5
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
- Distinctive: line 14
Before deploying to staging or production
- Distinctive: line 15
Before handing a system to another team
- Distinctive: line 16
Before declaring a sprint or milestone complete
- Distinctive: line 17
When someone says "it works on my machine"
- Distinctive: line 34
No outstanding HIGH or CRITICAL findings from security scan
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 47 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
Release Readiness
A working demo is not evidence of production readiness. Production readiness is proven through sustained operation, incident handling, cost predictability, and controlled evolution.
This skill enforces the production bar. It produces a go / no-go verdict with a signed checklist. No checklist = no go.
When to use
- Before deploying to staging or production
- Before handing a system to another team
- Before declaring a sprint or milestone complete
- When someone says "it works on my machine"
Procedure
- Validate the definition of done — confirm that acceptance criteria from the spec are met. "Looks good" is not a criterion. Run the actual validation commands.
- Check all quality gates pass under the approved release ADR and profile.
Require candidate/artifact-bound receipts from the declared executor; a hosted CI
outage never permits silently dropping a gate. Run the
release structural preflight
after the artifact exists and before promotion, then independently verify its
receipts. Structural PASS neither authenticates approvals nor proves test outcomes.
The commands below are defaults; use the project's declared equivalents:
make lint— style and static analysis cleanmake typecheck— no type errorsmake test— unit tests greenmake e2e— end-to-end tests green (or equivalent for your stack)- No outstanding HIGH or CRITICAL findings from security scan
- Name the failure modes — at minimum:
- What happens if the service is unavailable?
- What happens under unexpected load?
- What happens if a dependency (external API, database, queue) is degraded?
- What is the data-loss risk?
- Confirm rollback exists and is tested — a rollback plan that has never been tested is not a rollback plan. If the rollback has not been exercised, flag it.
- Estimate cost impact — LLM calls, storage writes, egress, third-party API calls. Any unbounded cost vector must be capped or accepted explicitly.
- Confirm planned service acceptance — verify applicable receiving-owner acceptance, support and knowledge-transfer evidence from the planning prerequisites. A document existing is not proof that the receiving team can operate the service.
- Confirm monitoring and alerting — what fires when this breaks? Who gets the alert? What is the on-call runbook?
- Check data boundaries — does the release touch PII, regulated data, or cross a tenant boundary? If yes, confirm the appropriate controls are in place.
- Sign off — record: who reviewed, what was checked, what was accepted as known risk, and the go/no-go verdict.
Outputs
- Signed release checklist (append to PR or release doc)
- Go / no-go verdict
- List of accepted known risks with named owners
Guardrails
- No go without a rollback plan. "We'll figure it out" is not a rollback.
- Passing declared gates is necessary, not sufficient. Release readiness also checks failure modes, authority, artifact identity and observation in either mode.
- Cost estimates are not optional. An unbounded LLM call in a hot path is a production incident waiting to happen.
- Monitoring must exist before go-live, not after. "We'll add monitoring later" means the first incident is invisible.
Anti-rationalization table
| Excuse | Counter |
| "CI is green, we're good to go" | CI checks known paths. Release readiness checks failure modes CI doesn't cover. |
| "We'll monitor it after launch" | The first failure will be invisible. Add monitoring before go-live. |
| "Rollback is just redeploy the previous version" | Untested. Run the rollback in staging first. |
| "Cost is fine, it's low traffic" | Low traffic + an LLM loop bug = runaway spend. Cap it. |
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.

