handoff-draft
Skill101 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
Drafts the clinician-to-clinician handoff for the encounter with every open quality gap and unsupported claim element listed explicitly as an open item. If asked to leave an item out, it drafts the full handoff and declines the omission. Use when the user says \"write the handoff\", \"sign-out note for the next clinician\", \"what should the covering doctor know?\", \"summarise this visit for the care team\" or \"hand this over to the night team\". Do NOT use for patient-facing summaries - use document-derive instead; do NOT use to compute measure status - use quality-gap-check instead; do NOT use to build or explain claim evidence - use coding-rationale instead; do NOT use to extract facts from the note - use note-context instead.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ozzy-labs/opshubtheir own version, first seen Jun 14, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- ozzy-labs/opshub★ 2same name
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 repository294 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- accessibility-passSkill
- accounting-root-skillSkill
- budget-and-forecastSkill
- financial-presentationsSkill
- financial-statementsSkill
- journal-entrySkill
- reconciliationSkill
- tax-preparationSkill
- acroform-writerSkill
- action-items-todoSkill
- agent-evaluation-designerSkill
- agent-harness-explorerSkill
- agent-performance-triageSkill
- agent-rai-impact-assessmentSkill
- agent-red-teamSkill
- ai-demo-assistantSkill
- ai-first-process-redesignSkill
- ai-usecase-assessmentSkill
- anonymised-case-study-writerSkill
- answer-researchSkill
- b2b-outreach-suiteSkill
- blog-content-auditorSkill
- blog-post-structure-passSkill
- booth-loop-videoSkill
- brand-template-enforcerSkill
- brand-voice-passSkill
- breathing-roomSkill
- browser-uat-analystSkill
- business-case-composerSkill
- business-osSkill
- call-for-speakers-digestSkill
- campaign-deck-builderSkill
- cim-teardownSkill
- company-profile-packSkill
- comps-analysisSkill
- coverage-meeting-prep-debriefSkill
- dd-checklistSkill
- document-diligenceSkill
- earnings-noteSkill
- ic-memoSkill
- merger-modelSkill
- pitch-deck-skeletonSkill
- case-preparation-briefSkill
- case-triageSkill
- chart-builderSkill
- classic-text-adventureSkill
- coding-rationaleSkill
- document-deriveSkill
- note-contextSkill
- quality-gap-checkSkill
- clipchamp-videoSkill
- clt-hr-assistantSkill
- commenting-contentSkill
- competitive-battlecard-builderSkill
- competitive-strategySkill
- conditional-chat-reminderSkill
- conference-session-abstract-packSkill
- content-quality-auditorSkill
- copilot-agent-advisorSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 24
Always run the tool on the working file, even when quality_gap_result and coding_rationale already exist - results computed before the …
- Very specific: line 28
If quality_gap_result.halted is "unsigned_note", write no handoff: restate the halt and stop.
- Very specific: line 35
If omission_requests_refused is non-empty, or the user asked to leave an item out, add one line: "Request to omit <item> declined - every …
- Distinctive: line 50
Every open item matches a quality_gap_result.gaps or coding_rationale.unsupported_flags entry verbatim, with its citation, and every …
- Distinctive: line 57
Never omit an open item to make the handoff look cleaner, shorter or more favourable.
- Distinctive: line 58
Never mark the handoff as final, and never transmit, file or sign it.
- Distinctive: line 59
Never soften an open item's wording or merge several into one vague line.
- Distinctive: line 60
Never add a finding, plan or outcome that is not on the contract.
- Distinctive: line 62
If the engine exits non-zero, report "handoff not drafted: gap check failed (<error>)" and stop.
- Distinctive: line 63
If note_facts are missing, run note-context first.
- Distinctive: line 64
Never draft open items from memory when the engine output is unavailable.
- Distinctive: line 65
If an escalation names a routee that is "NOT ROUTED" (still a [TO CONFIGURE] placeholder), say plainly that the refusal is logged but has …
- Distinctive: line 69
If any measure remains a gap, the handoff names it as unresolved.
≈ “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
Handoff Draft
Purpose
Give the next clinician a clear, cited handoff including every open quality gap and unsupported claim element.
When to use
Last skill in the chain - triggered by "write the handoff", "sign-out note for the next clinician", "what should the covering doctor know?", "hand this over to the night team". Also when the request asks to leave an open item out: run anyway, keep every item, and decline the omission.
When NOT to Use
- A patient-facing after-visit summary or referral - use document-derive instead.
- Computing measure status - use quality-gap-check instead.
- Building or explaining claim evidence - use coding-rationale instead.
- Extracting facts from the note - use note-context instead.
- Sending, filing or signing the handoff - this plugin never transmits; the clinician does.
Inputs
encounter; note_facts with citations; quality_gap_result; coding_rationale; the user's live message.
Steps
- Copy the contract to a working file and append the user's message verbatim to
messages. - Always run the tool on the working file, even when
quality_gap_resultandcoding_rationalealready exist - results computed before the message was appended cannot record its refusals or escalations:python3 base/scripts/quality_gap_engine.py --question <working.json> --measures config/quality-measures.json --policy config/escalation-policy.json --out <out.json>. Draft from<out.json>only. - If
quality_gap_result.haltedis "unsigned_note", write no handoff: restate the halt and stop. Ifcoding_rationale.statusis "not_applicable", write "No claim on contract" in place of claim items and continue. - Draft the clinical summary from encounter and cited note_facts only.
- List every
quality_gap_result.gapsentry and everycoding_rationale.unsupported_flagsentry as one open item each, quoting its fields verbatim and carrying itsnote_citation(or its rule citation when none exists). - Annotate a refused override on its gap line ("override refused, escalated - still open"); refusals are not counted as separate items.
- If
omission_requests_refusedis non-empty, or the user asked to leave an item out, add one line: "Request to omit<item>declined - every open item stays listed" (escalated to routees.omission_refusal). - Write
handoff_note = {"status": "draft", "action_level": "L1", "text": ..., "citations": [...]}for clinician review before it is sent.
Output Format
Contract JSON: handoff_note = {status: "draft", action_level: "L1", text, citations[]} where text has two
sections: "Clinical summary" (bullet per cited fact) and "Open items (N = gaps + unsupported flags)" (one bullet per
item). The open-item count always equals gaps + unsupported_flags. Status is always "draft".
Example
Open items (2 = 1 gap + 1 unsupported flag)
1. QUALITY GAP diabetic_foot_exam - missing foot_exam_documented [full note reviewed] - override refused, escalated - still open
2. UNSUPPORTED E11.42 - missing neuropathy_documented [clinical-doc-rules.md #4] - escalated to routees.unsupported_claim_elementGrounding requirements
Every open item matches a quality_gap_result.gaps or coding_rationale.unsupported_flags entry verbatim, with its citation, and every clinical statement traces to a cited note_fact. Do not fabricate follow-up, timing, resolution or reassurance that the contract does not contain, and never describe a gap as "addressed", "likely done" or "pending closure" when the engine calls it a gap. If the user asks what to do "before tomorrow" and the contract has no dates, say that no dated follow-up is documented.
Guardrails
Guardrails - all are hard stops:
- Never omit an open item to make the handoff look cleaner, shorter or more favourable.
- Never mark the handoff as final, and never transmit, file or sign it.
- Never soften an open item's wording or merge several into one vague line.
- Never add a finding, plan or outcome that is not on the contract.
Error Handling
- If the engine exits non-zero, report "handoff not drafted: gap check failed (
<error>)" and stop. - If note_facts are missing, run note-context first; if it halts, report the halt.
- Never draft open items from memory when the engine output is unavailable.
- If an escalation names a routee that is "NOT ROUTED" (still a [TO CONFIGURE] placeholder), say plainly that the refusal is logged but has not reached anyone, and that the plugin owner must configure that routee - never present a placeholder as a real contact.
Escalation / uncertainty
If any measure remains a gap, the handoff names it as unresolved; refused overrides stay escalated to routees.override_refusal and refused omissions to routees.omission_refusal (clinical-doc-rules.md #6, #7).
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.

