agentleFS
levyfluxlevyflux/codex-skills/skills/prd-delivery-lifecycle/SKILL.md

prd-delivery-lifecycle

Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Drive a product requirement from evidence-backed definition through implementation, verification, acceptance, and release readiness. Use for multi-step feature delivery, PRD authoring, requirement changes, feedback rounds, traceability, or cross-component work where decisions and evidence must remain coherent.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    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:

    Read evidence-contract.md for evidence layers and state-machine.md for feedback and invalidation rules.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep durable identifiers and links for:

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    Every implementation slice must trace back to a requirement and forward to verification.

    line 36
  4. Distinctive:

    add or identify the failing test or reproducible evidence.

    line 43
  5. Distinctive:

    run targeted checks, then broader checks proportional to risk.

    line 45
  6. Distinctive:

    update trace links, evidence, and unresolved risks.

    line 46
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not equate static analysis with runtime behavior, a passing test with deployment, or deployment with user acceptance.

    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

PRD Delivery Lifecycle

Maintain one versioned delivery model across three connected loops:

  1. Define and authorize — establish the problem, scope, decisions, contracts, risks, and acceptance evidence.
  2. Build and prove — implement vertical slices with tests and layer-appropriate validation.
  3. Accept and prepare release — reconcile feedback, close evidence gaps, and identify remaining authority gates.

Read evidence-contract.md for evidence layers and state-machine.md for feedback and invalidation rules.

Start from authoritative evidence

Before editing:

  • identify the requirement owner and authoritative source;
  • separate facts, assumptions, policy choices, and unresolved questions;
  • enumerate producers, consumers, states, failure paths, and compatibility surfaces;
  • define explicit non-goals and authority boundaries;
  • state which evidence will prove each acceptance criterion.

Reuse the repository's existing product-spec location. If none exists, create the smallest coherent feature record containing source, review, decisions, implementation plan, verification, and release notes.

Maintain the trace graph

Keep durable identifiers and links for:

REQ -> DEC -> CONTRACT -> TEST -> SLICE -> VERIFY -> RELEASE

Every implementation slice must trace back to a requirement and forward to verification. Every changed decision must identify which downstream nodes are stale.

Execute in vertical slices

For each slice:

  1. choose one user-observable or contract-observable outcome;
  2. add or identify the failing test or reproducible evidence;
  3. implement the smallest coherent change;
  4. run targeted checks, then broader checks proportional to risk;
  5. update trace links, evidence, and unresolved risks;
  6. request acceptance only when the required evidence layer exists.

Do not equate static analysis with runtime behavior, a passing test with deployment, or deployment with user acceptance.

Process feedback

Convert each feedback item into a packet containing the claim, evidence, impacted identifiers, classification, decision owner, and disposition. Invalidate only the affected downstream graph, then rerun the required checks. Never silently rewrite the requirement history.

Completion contract

Report:

  • behavior before and after;
  • requirement-to-evidence trace status;
  • changed components and their responsibilities;
  • validation by layer and its limitations;
  • unresolved decisions, risks, migrations, rollout, and rollback needs;
  • exact authority still required for commit, push, merge, deploy, or release.

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.