deliver
Skill0 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Take one task contract (goal, inputs, constraints, done_when) from a prompt to a reviewable pull request in one run: test first, implement, prove the change works by running it, review the diff once, and open the pull request with the proof. CI on the head is the merge evidence. No review rounds, no local attestation, no merge. Triggers on: "deliver this", "build this and open a PR", "implement this issue and open a PR", "take this task to a PR", or a task contract whose output is a pull request.
- Commits and pushes
25 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- zahidakhyar/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- frostney/knipstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/agent-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/claudetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mblauberg/provenanttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AcKeskin/contexturetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use prune, create-issue 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.
matthewpSkillprune
Find and remove unused CSS in a Tideway project — classes defined in stylesheets but never referenced in markup. Use whenever the user wants to prune dead CSS, find unused styles or classes, clean up or slim a stylesheet, find orphaned BEM classes, or "tree-shake" hand-written CSS.
Also in 3 projects that use this
sahinSkillcreate-issue
Also in 3 projects that use this
BlockSkillplan
Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.
Also in 5 projects that use this
AWSSkillship
Finalize dev work on an issue branch — update docs, push, and open a PR.
Also in 5 projects that use this
AWSSkillwait-what
Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Hugging FaceSkillimplement
Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Other versions25 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 25
- google-gemini/gemini-managed-agents-templates★ 99same name
- domengabrovsek/agent-config★ 22same name
- domengabrovsek/claude★ 22same name
- domitriusclark/claude-skills★ 11same name
- coder-xieshijie/dev-skills★ 5same name
- AcKeskin/contexture★ 2same name
- andeeplus/aplus★ 2same name
- MarkTripoli/skills★ 2same name
- matiopala/skills★ 2same name
- dcguim/skills★ 1same name
15 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 repository45 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- agents-searchSkill
- audit-and-fixSkill
- aws-specialistSkill
- azure-specialistSkill
- code-simplifierSkill
- create-assessmentSkill
- create-auditSkill
- create-experimentSkill
- create-inspectionSkill
- crossplane-specialistSkill
- deploy-statusSkill
- detect-flakySkill
- fix-with-evidenceSkill
- flyctlSkill
- gcp-specialistSkill
- gitSkill
- ground-firstSkill
- handoffSkill
- kubernetes-specialistSkill
- language-reviewSkill
- local-attestSkill
- peerSkill
- plan-graderSkill
- post-pr-reviewSkill
- pr-conductorSkill
- project-syncSkill
- pulumi-specialistSkill
- quality-reviewSkill
- release-conductorSkill
- reproduce-bugSkill
- review-prSkill
- review-prsSkill
- rollback-prodSkill
- security-auditSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- smoke-testSkill
- specSkill
- terraform-specialistSkill
- terragrunt-specialistSkill
- validate-specSkill
- veracity-auditSkill
- yoloSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Very specific: line 62
Before you write code, give each done_when item and each constraint one mechanical check and the evidence it produces:
- Very specific: line 78
Read the inputs and the code the goal touches.
- Distinctive: line 79
If the contract has two readings that lead to different code, ask one question.
- Very specific: line 80
Create a worktree from the latest origin/main under .claude/worktrees/<slug>/, per the rule floor.
- Very specific: line 91
Write at most five bullets in the form Step → verify: <check>.
- Distinctive: line 95
Write the tests for each behavior: unit tests, and integration tests where the change crosses a process, file, network, or database …
- Distinctive: line 96
Run them and see them fail for the right reason.
- Distinctive: line 101
Run the feature the way a user does.
- Distinctive: line 116
Run the check from step 2 for each constraint.
- Very specific: line 124
Commit with conventional messages.
- Distinctive: line 126
Write the body with these sections, in this order:
- Very specific: line 131
If a linked spec declares active criteria, run dotbabel criteria verify --pr <N> --post from the worktree at the pull request head.
- Very specific: line 157
Run gh pr checks <N> --watch.
- Distinctive: line 167
Never weaken a test, a check, a constraint, or a threshold to reach done.
- Very specific: line 168
Never add [skip ci] to the head commit, and never write the marker in any commit message, even to describe it: GitHub matches it anywhere …
- Distinctive: line 169
Never merge, and never force-push.
- Distinctive: line 170
Stop and ask only for: an ambiguity that changes the result, a constraint the goal cannot meet, a check that stays red after three fixes, …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 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
Take one task from its contract to a reviewable pull request, back to back. The proof that the change works is part of the deliverable, not a later phase. Review rounds, /pr-conductor, and local-attest are not steps of this flow: the user runs them on demand.
Trigger: when the user gives a task and asks for it to end in a pull request, in prose or as a contract such as:
{
"goal": "ship the feature",
"inputs": ["issue", "repository", "design"],
"output": "reviewable pull request",
"constraints": ["no schema changes", "preserve public API"],
"done_when": ["tests pass", "visual check passes", "review passes"]
}Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
<contract>— the task, as JSON or prose.--draft— open the pull request as a draft.
Consent. Start this skill only when the user's prompt asks for the task to end in a pull request, in words or as the contract's output. That prompt is the consent to push the task's branch and open its pull request, for this one task. A task that does not ask for a pull request gets the same steps up to step 8, and then stops with local commits. This skill never merges: merging stays an explicit instruction, handed to /merge-pr.
1. Read the contract
Normalize the contract to five fields:
| Field | Meaning | If absent |
goal | the change | ask one question; with no goal there is no task |
inputs | the issue, design, files, or links to read | read what the prompt names |
output | what the run ends with | a reviewable pull request |
constraints | what the change must not do | none beyond the rule floor |
done_when | the checks that make the task done | tests pass, the feature runs, review passes |
2. Map every item to a check
Before you write code, give each done_when item and each constraint one mechanical check and the evidence it produces:
| Item | Check | Evidence |
| tests pass | the new tests, plus the existing tests that cover the changed code | the command and its last lines |
| the feature runs | step 6 below | the command and its output |
| visual check passes | /run the app, open the changed screen, take a screenshot | the screenshot and what it shows |
| review passes | step 8 below | findings found, fixed, answered |
| no schema changes | git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD -- <schema paths> is empty | the empty output |
| preserve public API | the diff of exports, CLI flags, bin entries, and endpoints is empty or only adds | that diff |
| criteria pass | dotbabel criteria verify --pr <N> --post | the evidence comment |
An item you cannot map to a check is not done. Write it in the proof as unverified, with the reason. Never tick it.
3. Ground and isolate
- Read the inputs and the code the goal touches. Cite
file:linefor each claim. - If the contract has two readings that lead to different code, ask one question. Otherwise state the reading you chose and continue.
- Create a worktree from the latest
origin/mainunder.claude/worktrees/<slug>/, per the rule floor. Wheredotbabel fleetruns, claim the paths you will edit. From inside the worktree, record the contract, so a later session in that worktree can resume the task. A task record belongs to the worktree it is written from.
dotbabel task new <slug> --goal "<goal>" --done-when "<item>" ... --constraint "<item>" ...Skip the record when
dotbabelis not installed, and say so in the report.
4. Plan
Write at most five bullets in the form Step → verify: <check>. Do not wait for approval: the contract is the approval. Stop only for an ambiguity that changes the result, or for a constraint that the goal cannot meet.
5. Test first, then implement
- Write the tests for each behavior: unit tests, and integration tests where the change crosses a process, file, network, or database boundary. Include a negative case and a boundary case.
- Run them and see them fail for the right reason.
- Implement until they pass. Keep to the constraints.
6. Prove it works
Run the feature the way a user does. Choose by the surface the change has:
| Surface | Run |
| CLI | the command with real arguments, in a temporary directory if it writes |
| library | a short script that calls the public function |
| server, API | start it, call the endpoint, read the response |
| UI | /run the app, open the changed screen, take a screenshot |
| docs only | run each command the changed text shows, and check each link it adds |
| none | write N/A — <reason>: a pure refactor that the tests already cover |
Record each command and the last ten lines of its output. A run that fails is a bug: fix it, and add the test that would have caught it.
7. Check the constraints
Run the check from step 2 for each constraint. A constraint that fails stops the task: report it rather than weaken it.
8. Review once
Run one review of the branch diff: /code-review on the changed files, or /quality-review where the project has a dotbabel quality policy. Fix each correct finding. Answer each wrong one in the proof, in one line. Do not post review comments, and do not start review rounds: /post-pr-review, /review-pr, and /pr-conductor run only when the user asks.
9. Open the pull request
- Commit with conventional messages. Do not add
[skip ci]: CI on the head is the merge evidence. - Push the branch once, when the proof is complete, and open the pull request with
gh pr create --body-file <file>(add--draftfor--draft). Where CI minutes are metered (a private repository without a self-hosted runner), every push of the head starts a paid run, so push the fixes of step 10 in one batch. - Write the body with these sections, in this order:
## Summary— one to three bullets.## Test plan— a checklist; tick only the items you ran.## Proof— the format below.## Spec IDor## No-spec rationale— last, when the project uses specs or the change touches a protected path.
- If a linked spec declares active criteria, run
dotbabel criteria verify --pr <N> --postfrom the worktree at the pull request head. A failing criterion is a failingdone_whenitem.
The ## Proof section:
## Proof
| done_when | Check | Result |
| ----------------- | ------------------------------------ | ---------------------------- |
| tests pass | `npx vitest run tests/foo.test.mjs` | 14 passed |
| the feature runs | `dotbabel foo --bar baz` | prints `3 items`, exit 0 |
| no schema changes | `git diff --stat main... -- schemas` | empty |
| review passes | `/code-review` on the diff | 3 found, 2 fixed, 1 answered |
<details><summary>Feature run</summary>
```text
$ dotbabel foo --bar baz
...
```
</details>10. Wait for CI
Run gh pr checks <N> --watch. Fix a red check on the branch with a new commit, and repeat step 6 when the fix changes behavior. After three failed fixes for one check, stop and report it.
11. Report
Give the completion status: the done_when table with each result, the pull request link, and the CI state. Close the task record from the worktree with dotbabel task close <slug>. Name the next step: /merge-pr <N> when the user says merge, or a review the user may want to run on demand.
Rules
- The proof is the contract. Never tick a
done_whenitem or a test-plan item without evidence in the pull request body. - One review pass. No review fleet, no comment rounds, no local attestation, unless the user asks.
- Never weaken a test, a check, a constraint, or a threshold to reach done.
- Never add
[skip ci]to the head commit, and never write the marker in any commit message, even to describe it: GitHub matches it anywhere in the message and skips the whole run. Check withgit log --format=%B -1before you push. - Never merge, and never force-push.
- Stop and ask only for: an ambiguity that changes the result, a constraint the goal cannot meet, a check that stays red after three fixes, or a destructive action.
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.

