run-product-engineering
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Runs an evidence-driven product engineering system from signals and ideas through triage, problem framing, discovery, bets, small-batch implementation, validation, release, observability, incidents, bug fixing, outcome review, and evolution. Use when a team coordinates an end-to-end product lifecycle, shapes how its product work flows, or connects discovery with delivery and operations.
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-designSkill
- backend-craftSkill
- meilisearchSkill
- design-coreSkill
- design-datavizSkill
- design-flowsSkill
- design-formsSkill
- design-product-uiSkill
- design-researchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-slidesSkill
- design-systemsSkill
- design-webSkill
- agent-syncSkill
- build-autonomous-agentsSkill
- coding-disciplineSkill
- completion-gateSkill
- deliver-dependency-upgradesSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- grill-harness-with-docsSkill
- learn-agentic-engineeringSkill
- pnpmSkill
- scaffold-harnessSkill
- scaffold-monorepoSkill
- shift-left-securitySkill
- start-gateSkill
- update-harnessSkill
- write-a-skillSkill
- frontend-craftSkill
- ansible-automationSkill
- gitea-actionsSkill
- gitea-teaSkill
- manage-infrastructure-as-codeSkill
- multi-stage-dockerfileSkill
- secure-linux-web-hostingSkill
- integrate-product-complianceSkill
- plain-numbersSkill
- product-craftSkill
- playwright-best-practicesSkill
- testing-strategiesSkill
- writing-coreSkill
- writing-editorialSkill
- writing-engineeringSkill
- writing-marketingSkill
- writing-productSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. About 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈17
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
- Distinctive: line 16
Run only the loop the current decision needs.
- Distinctive: line 25
Read the target's product context, customer evidence, domain language, current bets, architecture, delivery system, telemetry, incidents, …
- Distinctive: line 44
Treat ideas, requests, telemetry, bugs, incidents, security findings, compliance constraints, operational pain, and strategic opportunities …
- Distinctive: line 67
Use product-craft for problem framing, opportunities, bets, outcome boundaries, and strategic trade-offs.
- Distinctive: line 71
Create or update only the target's smallest equivalent of:
- Distinctive: line 83
Treat the domain model and solution concept as hypotheses that examples, implementation, and production evidence may refine.
- Distinctive: line 89
Before building, connect the bet to the smallest useful delivery and learning contract.
- Distinctive: line 101
Use integrate-product-compliance only when confirmed scope or obligations apply.
- Distinctive: line 109
completion-gate: Use build-autonomous-agents when the product capability or value stream itself needs an agent runtime.
- Distinctive: line 117
Never let plausible spike code silently become the production implementation.
- Distinctive: line 129
When target policy permits, release without a routine human gate when expected value is positive, blast radius is bounded, checks are …
- Distinctive: line 156
Use upstream diagnosing-bugs for the debugging loop.
- Distinctive: line 170
Use agent-sync to route durable evidence to its owning context, decision, test, runbook, Skill, policy, or learning artifact.
- Distinctive: line 174
When evidence changes domain meaning, update the owned ubiquitous language, examples, invariants, contracts, and context map together with …
- Distinctive: line 178
Read references/operating-model.md when designing stages, metrics, or exceptional paths.
- Distinctive: line 191
integrate-product-compliance: - add confirmed control scope and evidence
- Distinctive: line 195
completion-gate: - verify before release or completion claims
≈ “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.
Files
Run Product Engineering
Operate a closed product loop. A release is an intervention, not completion; production evidence must change the next product or engineering decision.
The loop is not a sequence of specification, implementation, testing, and deployment handoffs. Domain discovery, examples, tests, security, operability, delivery, and production learning advance together in the smallest useful cycles.
Run only the loop the current decision needs; a small change does not have to traverse a portfolio process to be done well.
For one isolated implementation or bug fix with no lifecycle decision, use the relevant craft Skill, upstream diagnosing-bugs, coding-discipline, and completion-gate directly.
1. Ground the Operating Domain
Read the target's product context, customer evidence, domain language, current bets, architecture, delivery system, telemetry, incidents, support signals, security and compliance obligations, and decision rights.
Identify:
- the product or value-stream owner
- canonical sources for signals, decisions, work state, and production evidence
- bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, invariants, domain events, public contracts, and their semantic owners
- current reliable harness level from
scaffold-harness/MATURITY.md - agent authority, human veto, budgets, and escalation paths
- the actual Fast Check, Full Gates, release, rollback, and incident controls
Preserve local vocabulary and tools. Do not create a new board, artifact set, or cadence when the existing system already exposes the required state.
2. Admit Work as a Signal
Treat ideas, requests, telemetry, bugs, incidents, security findings, compliance constraints, operational pain, and strategic opportunities as signals. Do not promote a signal directly into delivery.
A backlog, when the target uses one, is a short visible pull queue for current decisions. It is not a commitment inventory or a substitute for signal provenance, triage, outcome evidence, or kill criteria.
Triage enough to establish:
- source, affected users or system, evidence strength, and urgency
- value, usability, feasibility, viability, security, compliance, and operability risk
- reversibility, blast radius, dependencies, and decision owner
- next action: discard, observe, investigate, contain, discover, deliver, or escalate
Incidents and urgent vulnerabilities may enter a contained recovery path without waiting for normal discovery. They still return evidence to the same product loop.
3. Frame the Smallest Decision
Use product-craft for problem framing, opportunities, bets, outcome boundaries, and strategic trade-offs. Use upstream domain-modeling when shared language is unclear.
Create or update only the target's smallest equivalent of:
- problem statement and evidence
- intended customer and business outcome
- riskiest assumptions and risk burn-down
- candidate intervention and explicit non-goals
- investment boundary, success, pivot, and kill criteria
- owner, review date, and decision rights
The work is ready for focus when the next investment decision is possible, not when every implementation detail is specified.
Treat the domain model and solution concept as hypotheses that examples, implementation, and production evidence may refine. Do not freeze a complete up-front model or specification and hand it to delivery as presumed truth.
4. Define the Delivery and Learning Contract
Before building, connect the bet to the smallest useful delivery and learning contract. This is not a comprehensive specification or stage gate. Include:
- one thin, releasable slice
- behavioral examples, negative or abuse cases, and deterministic acceptance boundaries
- risk-ranked test, eval, threat, operability, and evidence signals
- architecture, data, security, compliance, and operational constraints
- rollout, migration, rollback, support, and incident ownership
- product outcome, adoption, reliability, cost, and guardrail signals
- observation window and outcome review decision
Use integrate-product-compliance only when confirmed scope or obligations apply. Compliance interpretation and risk acceptance remain with named human owners.
5. Build, Validate, and Release
Route the slice to the relevant craft Skill, coding-discipline, testing-strategies, an installed upstream tdd when it fits, and completion-gate. Use build-autonomous-agents when the product capability or value stream itself needs an agent runtime.
Burn down the next uncertainty before expanding the slice. When learning is cheaper than production design, run a bounded experiment, prototype, or technical spike with a hypothesis, timebox, isolation, and explicit exit. Mark its code provisional; avoid production secrets, data, privileges, and effects. End with discard, another experiment, or an explicit production decision. Never let plausible spike code silently become the production implementation.
For production behavior, use a vertical TDD loop: express one domain example at a public boundary, run the failing check, implement the minimum coherent behavior, refactor while green, and update domain language or contracts when the model changes. Security, privacy, accessibility, compliance, operability, telemetry, and evidence are design inputs throughout the loop, not downstream review departments.
Build quality, security, operability, accessibility, telemetry, and evidence into the slice. Use a risk-based release policy with least privilege, isolation, review, progressive exposure, rollback, and explicit approval where required. When target policy permits, release without a routine human gate when expected value is positive, blast radius is bounded, checks are meaningful, observation is available, and rollback is executable. Remaining non-blocking uncertainty is evidence and a follow-up signal, not an automatic release gate. Escalate only for missing authority or secrets, irreversible external effects, contradictory product intent, or damage that cannot be bounded.
The release completes only when the intended behavior, telemetry, rollback, and ownership are live and inspectable.
6. Close the Production Loop
Observe customer outcome and system behavior together. Use traces, metrics, logs, product analytics, support, revenue or retention signals, and qualitative feedback only within their documented provenance and privacy boundaries.
Route production signals:
- bug: establish a reproduction loop, diagnose root cause, add a failing check, make the smallest fix, release, and watch the affected signal
- incident: contain, restore, investigate, remediate, verify recovery, and feed the learning into controls and product priorities
- weak adoption or outcome: inspect value, usability, distribution, reliability, and measurement assumptions before adding features
- successful outcome: decide whether to scale, standardize, continue, harvest, or stop
Use upstream diagnosing-bugs for the debugging loop. Do not let an agent invent a root cause without a feedback loop.
7. Review Outcome and Evolve
At the agreed observation boundary, compare the actual outcome with the bet, cost, risk, and externalities. End with one explicit decision:
- continue or scale
- iterate with a new bounded hypothesis
- rollback or remediate
- stop or retire
- change the product-engineering system
Use agent-sync to route durable evidence to its owning context, decision, test, runbook, Skill, policy, or learning artifact. Do not maintain a parallel AI-generated product memory.
When evidence changes domain meaning, update the owned ubiquitous language, examples, invariants, contracts, and context map together with the implementing slice. Do not let code, tests, and domain artifacts describe different models.
Read references/operating-model.md when designing stages, metrics, or exceptional paths.
8. Complete
The loop is complete when signal, decision, slice, release, production evidence, outcome, and next action are traceable; every artifact has an owner; and the system learned without confusing activity, deployment, or agent output with value.
Related Skills
- product-craft - shape problems, opportunities, bets, and outcomes
- integrate-product-compliance - add confirmed control scope and evidence
- build-autonomous-agents - implement a bounded product agent or workflow
- coding-discipline, testing-strategies, and upstream tdd - design and implement changeable slices through executable feedback
- completion-gate - verify before release or completion claims
- agent-sync - route durable production learning
- scaffold-harness - assess the repository harness and its operating level
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.

