agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/testfx/.github/skills/session-delivery-hygiene/SKILL.md

session-delivery-hygiene

Skill1.1k starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub

Gate local-session scope, persistent delivery, live PR state, integration provenance, and owned cleanup. Use before implementing guidance changes, changing or pushing PR work, diagnosing package/output mismatches, or handing off implementation.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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 repository instructions first.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    If no change is needed, explain the evidence rather than claiming a fix.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Integration provenance: Before diagnosing stale-package or launch failures, identify the exact consumer checkout, configuration, TFM/RID, …

    line 37
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer isolated outputs/caches.

    line 54

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Session delivery hygiene

Read repository instructions first. Apply only the gates relevant to the task's risks; this skill grants no additional scope, publication permission, or authority over another session.

Risk-based gates

  1. Outcome and ownership. Classify the request as analysis, implementation, publication, or an explicitly requested combination. Improving reviewer or workflow guidance means editing that guidance, not running or posting a review. Preserve the requested repository, branch, paths, and exclusions. Confirm the active worktree and existing changes before editing; do not overwrite unrelated work or alter user-global settings or other sessions.
  2. Persistent delivery. For implementation, inspect the actual final files and Git diff, including staged and untracked files, against each requested outcome. Inspect commits too when the worktree is clean. A plan, status update, successful command, or agent's completion message is not a delivered change. Validate the changed artifact itself; for guidance, check skill metadata, local links, examples, and consistency with existing instructions. If no change is needed, explain the evidence rather than claiming a fix.
  3. Live PR destination. Immediately before editing PR-linked work or pushing it, read the PR's live state, base/head repositories and refs, and head SHA; confirm the destination still matches the requested work. Recheck before publication if the state may have changed. Never push to or recreate a merged PR's old head branch. Use a new follow-up branch and, only when publication is authorized, a new PR targeting the intended base branch; do not infer that target from a local checkout or default to main. For a closed unmerged PR, stop publication unless reopening or a follow-up is authorized. If live state cannot be read, do not push based on stale session metadata. Local commits do not prove delivery to a live PR.
  4. Integration provenance. Before diagnosing stale-package or launch failures, identify the exact consumer checkout, configuration, TFM/RID, executable/output layout, producer commit, and package ID/version. Inspect the consumer's effective NuGet configuration, NUGET_PACKAGES or RestorePackagesPath, and resolved paths in project.assets.json; a global cache listing does not identify a repository-local restore. For packaged apps, verify package identity/version, registration install location, and the launched process/loaded binary paths belong to the output under test. Establish or correct that provenance before concluding the implementation is defective; rebuilding elsewhere is not proof the consumer used it.
  5. Owned cleanup. Track only resources created or temporarily changed for this task: process IDs and executable paths, exact package registrations and install locations, temporary files, and prior override values. Reconfirm ownership before cleanup; stop processes by specific PID, remove only task-owned registrations/files, and restore temporary overrides to their prior values. Never kill by process name, unregister all matching apps, clear entire shared/global caches, or recursively delete broad directories. Prefer isolated outputs/caches; even a targeted cache eviction requires proof of the consumer's actual path and ownership. Leave borrowed resources untouched and report any owned cleanup that could not be completed.

Evidence-based handoff

Lead with the implemented outcome or concrete blocker, then name changed artifacts and their actual delivery state. These states are not interchangeable:

StateRequired evidence
LocalFinal file/diff exists in the identified worktree.
CommittedCommit SHA contains the intended changes.
PushedRead the destination remote ref and verify it contains that commit.
PublishedRead the live PR/comment/other object and verify the intended content and current head where applicable.
CI-verifiedRelevant checks passed for the exact published head SHA, not an earlier or merged PR.

Include the decisive validation result and any remaining blocker or owned cleanup. Do not label local validation as CI, or a push as publication. Existing GitHub-body readback and composed-product validation requirements still apply. Finish the requested work without status-only handoffs, invented follow-up tasks, or unsolicited publication.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Quiet since September.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 1 mentionJan 2026: 0 mentionsFeb 2026: 0 mentionsMar 2026: 14 mentionsApr 2026: 0 mentionsMay 2026: 3 mentionsJun 2026: 0 mentionsJul 2026: 0 mentionsAug 2026: 0 mentionsSep 2026: 2 mentionsOct 2026: 0 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the microsoft/testfx repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Who's talking about microsoft/testfx

The biggest 5 of 68 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 68

Talked about on GitHub and Stack Overflow (68 times).

On GitHub · 41

36 more on GitHub

On Stack Overflow · 27

22 more on Stack Overflow

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.