production-ai-saas-builder
Skill7 starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub
Build a production-ready AI tool or multi-tenant SaaS end to end, from problem definition through architecture, implementation, verification, deployment, and launch operations. Use for AI products, copilots, RAG applications, agentic workflows, paid web apps, MVPs that must be safely productionized, and SaaS modernization; require authorization before accessing services or deploying.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- letscooktech-studio/ai-engineering-arsenalword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- letscooktech-studio/ai-engineering-arsenal★ 7100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agentic-skill-pack-integratorSkill
- ai-agent-architecture-reviewerSkill
- ai-search-optimizerSkill
- competitor-analyzerSkill
- cost-explosion-detectorSkill
- cto-operating-systemSkill
- database-architectSkill
- nextjs-production-architecture-reviewerSkill
- nvidia-accelerated-ai-systems-operatorSkill
- production-risk-labSkill
- security-auditorSkill
- seo-auditorSkill
- startup-validatorSkill
- supabase-production-auditorSkill
- system-architectSkill
- technical-debt-hunterSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Do not stop at a plan. Deliver the artifacts appropriate to the authorized scope:
- Distinctive: line 24
When a requested artifact is unsafe or requires unavailable credentials, create a reviewed interface, mock, migration, or deployment plan …
- Distinctive: line 30
Write a one-page product brief.
- Distinctive: line 46
Add structured logs without sensitive content, request/trace IDs, product and reliability metrics, health checks, alerts, runbooks, and …
- Distinctive: line 54
Use preview environments, reviewed migrations, feature flags, staged rollout, telemetry gates, and an owner on call.
- Distinctive: line 58
Every feature has an acceptance test and an observable product or operational signal.
- Very specific: line 59
Every external input, model response, webhook, and tool call is authenticated/validated/authorized at its boundary.
- Distinctive: line 60
Every tenant-scoped query and object-store key is isolation-tested.
- Distinctive: line 61
Every stateful release has backup, migration, rollback, and owner evidence.
- Distinctive: line 62
Every AI capability has a task-specific evaluation set, prompt/model version, cost ceiling, timeout, and fallback behavior.
- Distinctive: line 63
Every production secret is absent from source, logs, client bundles, fixtures, and public examples.
- Distinctive: line 64
Every release has a measurable release criterion, monitoring window, and reversal path.
- Distinctive: line 80
Read production-checklist.md before declaring a project launch-ready.
≈ “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
Production AI SaaS Builder
Turn a business problem into a working, secure, observable, cost-controlled product. Produce code and artifacts only after the acceptance criteria and delivery constraints are clear. Apply the shared OutcomeLab skill standard.
Required intake
Collect or explicitly assume: target user and job, business outcome, acceptance criteria, budget/runway, timeline, legal geography, data classes, existing code/designs, team skills, cloud and model constraints, integrations, expected volume, SLOs, deployment authority, and launch owner. Ask only questions that change architecture, safety, scope, or cost. If details are missing, write a short assumption register and build the smallest reversible slice.
Delivery contract
Do not stop at a plan. Deliver the artifacts appropriate to the authorized scope:
- Product brief: ICP, job, user journey, non-goals, pricing hypothesis, success metric, and acceptance criteria.
- Technical design: architecture, data flow, trust boundaries, ADRs, API/schema contracts, tenancy model, and failure behavior.
- Working implementation: repo structure, frontend, backend, auth, persistence, background work, model integration, tests, environment examples, and local run instructions.
- Production operations: CI, migrations, secrets handling, logging/metrics/tracing, alerts, dashboards, rate limits, backups, retention/deletion, incident and rollback runbooks.
- Launch packet: threat model, cost model, evaluation results, release checklist, analytics events, support/feedback route, and post-launch review date.
When a requested artifact is unsafe or requires unavailable credentials, create a reviewed interface, mock, migration, or deployment plan instead of pretending it was executed.
Operating framework
1. Frame the product
Write a one-page product brief. Convert vague ambition into user-visible outcomes and testable acceptance criteria. Choose an MVP that validates the riskiest assumption; defer features that do not affect the first paid or retained user.
2. Choose a boring-enough architecture
Start with a modular monolith unless independent scaling, isolation, or ownership evidence justifies distributed services. Select stack, database, queue, storage, model provider, and hosting by constraints—not popularity. Define boundaries for UI, API, domain logic, worker, integrations, and AI gateway. Record why each irreversible choice is safe enough now.
3. Design the AI subsystem
Define the task, model contract, prompt/version ownership, tool permissions, context assembly, output schema, fallback, latency and token budget. For RAG, define corpus authority, ingestion, chunking, metadata/tenant filters, retrieval evaluation, citations, refresh, and deletion. For agents, constrain tools with least privilege, confirmations for consequential actions, timeouts, idempotency, loop/cost caps, and auditable traces. Treat model output as untrusted input.
4. Build the SaaS foundation
Implement identity and organization membership before user data; enforce authorization on every data access. Put tenant ID in the authoritative query boundary, not only the UI. Define billing entitlement separately from payment callbacks. Use transactions, idempotency keys, dead-letter/retry policy, and schema validation around external events. Keep secrets server-side and configuration typed and validated at boot.
5. Make it operable
Add structured logs without sensitive content, request/trace IDs, product and reliability metrics, health checks, alerts, runbooks, and ownership. Model cost per successful task, customer, and model call. Add hard usage caps and graceful degradation before usage scales. Practice restore, failed deployment, and provider-outage paths.
6. Verify before release
Run type/lint/build checks; unit, integration, authorization, migration, and end-to-end tests; dependency/secret scanning; load tests for known critical paths; and AI task evaluations covering ordinary, adversarial, refusal, and degraded-provider cases. Verify accessibility, mobile behavior, privacy controls, legal copy, analytics consent, and support flow. Do not mark production-ready solely because the happy path works locally.
7. Release safely
Use preview environments, reviewed migrations, feature flags, staged rollout, telemetry gates, and an owner on call. Define explicit abort/rollback conditions. After launch, compare real behavior, cost, latency, reliability, and user outcome with pre-launch assumptions; create the next smallest improvement.
Quality gates
- Every feature has an acceptance test and an observable product or operational signal.
- Every external input, model response, webhook, and tool call is authenticated/validated/authorized at its boundary.
- Every tenant-scoped query and object-store key is isolation-tested.
- Every stateful release has backup, migration, rollback, and owner evidence.
- Every AI capability has a task-specific evaluation set, prompt/model version, cost ceiling, timeout, and fallback behavior.
- Every production secret is absent from source, logs, client bundles, fixtures, and public examples.
- Every release has a measurable release criterion, monitoring window, and reversal path.
Failure detection and risk controls
Flag and halt for missing authorization, unclassified sensitive data, undefined tenant model, unbounded model/tool loops, no rollback for destructive change, no evaluation for a user-facing AI claim, or a launch without operational ownership. Do not claim compliance certification, security approval, availability, model accuracy, or deployment completion without corresponding evidence. Escalate payment, healthcare, legal, safety-critical, biometric, or regulated-data decisions to qualified humans.
Output format
Return: (1) status and assumptions, (2) prioritized delivery plan, (3) architecture/ADR, (4) implementation changes and commands actually run, (5) test/evaluation evidence, (6) risk register and unresolved decisions, (7) release checklist/rollback plan, and (8) next owner/action. Keep confirmed facts, estimates, and recommendations separate.
Benchmark and improvement
Compare against a generic “build me a SaaS” result on requirement traceability, tenant/security coverage, AI evaluation, test coverage, deployability, operational readiness, cost controls, and calibration. Success is a user-validated workflow released with passed gates and no unaccepted critical risk. Feed incidents, support tickets, failed evaluations, and cost surprises back into the requirements, tests, and architecture.
Reference
Read production-checklist.md before declaring a project launch-ready.
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.

