deliver
Skill1 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use to verify and accept approved non-software outcomes (research, analysis, documents, agent work) and to write the outcome report every skill uses. Not for software changes (implement), unsettled scope (scope) or promotion (release).
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
- AcKeskin/contexturetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- domitriusclark/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use prune, create-issue and 8 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
SentrySkillspec
Produce a verified spec — problem, desired outcome, and acceptance criteria — before building. Use when given a GitHub/Linear issue link, when starting from a fuzzy in-conversation idea, or asked to "figure out what to do" / "scope this" / "what should I build" — whenever the *what* isn't yet pinned down. Grills the ambiguities, checks the premise against the code, and produces acceptance criteria you sign off on — then hands to design-first.
Also in 4 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
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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- code-reviewSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- engineering-docsSkill
- engineering-writingSkill
- evaluateSkill
- implementSkill
- legal-writingSkill
- natural-writingSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- refactorSkill
- releaseSkill
- retrospectSkill
- scopeSkill
- sessionSkill
- setup-repoSkill
- skill-craftSkill
- test-designSkill
- trackerSkill
- ui-ux-designSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 21
Before starting an issue, show tracker lint advice and proceed even if checks are unavailable.
- Very specific: line 33
Agent work products: check the output against the criteria directly.
- Distinctive: line 47
Follow-ups, each as a tracker issue or a named owner.
- Distinctive: line 49
Never fabricate approval from passing checks.
“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
Deliver
Non-software work has no CI to say it is done. This skill supplies the
evidence standard and the report that lets the owner accept or reject the
result without redoing it. Software goes through implement, which ends with
the same report.
Entry
Require approved intent, acceptance criteria with how each is verified, a risk
tier and bounded authority. Unsettled intent goes to scope. A run that
needs a delivery record saves one with provenant workflow receipt save ID
--expected-revision N --request FILE and reads it with provenant workflow
receipt show ID.
Before starting an issue, show tracker lint advice and proceed even if checks
are unavailable. provenant run --use deliver shows it on entry; otherwise
run provenant tracker lint N (or --file PATH for a local spec).
How it runs
- Research or analysis:
provenant run --use research --file Q.md --explainto gather sourced claims, thensynthesiseto reconcile them. Every claim carries a source, a date and whether it was observed or inferred. - Documents: a read-only fidelity check through
run --use verify, preferably on a different model family, that compares the document with its sources and criteria and lists unsupported claims, not stylistic edits. - Agent work products: check the output against the criteria directly;
produce deterministic evidence (a diff, a recomputation, a test) before
judgement evidence. For stochastic behaviour use
evaluate.
Outcome report
The owner can reject it, so write it for a reader who will not open the artefact. Lead with the decision needed, then:
- What changed or was produced, and where it lives.
- Each acceptance criterion with its evidence, or
unverifiedand why. - Review coverage: who or what reviewed, from which model family, and what was not covered.
- What was not verified, and the assumptions made on the owner's behalf.
- Follow-ups, each as a tracker issue or a named owner.
Never fabricate approval from passing checks. A check that did not run is reported as not run. Evidence outranks confidence.
Acceptance
Objective checks plus the review the tier requires meet acceptance; the chair
accepts and reports, and the owner may reject. Explicit owner acceptance is
needed only for terminal work or when the approved scope asks for it.
Delegates may only narrow authority. Sending, publishing and deploying are
release. Keep the criteria, evidence and outcome in the existing issue or PR,
and move settled rules to their durable home (engineering-docs).
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.

