archive-milestone
Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Archive completed roadmap work packages or iteration/phase/version/period snapshots while preserving milestone event evidence and unfinished work.
In this repository77 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- assess-product-opportunitySkill
- automate-testsSkill
- bump-versionSkill
- capture-work-itemsSkill
- commit-workSkill
- competitive-researchSkill
- consume-nats-messageSkill
- decontextualize-textSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- define-docs-normsSkill
- define-missionSkill
- define-north-starSkill
- define-roadmapSkill
- define-strategic-pillarsSkill
- define-visionSkill
- deliver-featureSkill
- design-strategic-goalsSkill
- eli5Skill
- establish-delivery-workflowSkill
- execute-delivery-workflowSkill
- generate-agent-entrySkill
- generate-github-workflowSkill
- generate-standard-readmeSkill
- inspect-artifact-stateSkill
- integrate-branchesSkill
- manage-secretSkill
- map-item-dependenciesSkill
- market-researchSkill
- orchestrate-code-reviewSkill
- orchestrate-governance-stepSkill
- orchestrate-repair-loopSkill
- orchestrate-repair-requirements-loopSkill
- orchestrate-roadmap-planningSkill
- plan-milestonesSkill
- plan-nextSkill
- policy-researchSkill
- ponytailSkill
- prepare-presales-responseSkill
- prepare-version-notesSkill
- prioritize-backlogSkill
- product-opportunity-analysisSkill
- promote-roadmap-itemsSkill
- publish-nats-messageSkill
- record-milestone-achievementSkill
- redeploy-localSkill
- refine-skill-designSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-codebaseSkill
- review-diffSkill
- review-dotnetSkill
- review-error-surfacingSkill
- review-functional-designSkill
- review-goSkill
- review-implementation-alignmentSkill
- review-javaSkill
- review-observabilitySkill
- review-orm-usageSkill
- 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 18
Use the general snapshot route for a phase, version, year/period or a milestone's associated work.
- Distinctive: line 38
Read authoritative scope, acceptance and release evidence.
- Distinctive: line 48
No directory removal occurs on this route.
- Distinctive: line 49
Verify snapshot/source agreement, incoming/outgoing links and visibility of all unfinished work.
- Very specific: line 57
Read milestones/{slug}/tasks.md.
- Distinctive: line 63
If neither holds, report the specific reason and stop without changes.
- Distinctive: line 65
Check source closure criteria and acceptance/release evidence before folding anything as completed.
- Very specific: line 74
Before authorized apply=true, require a clean Git worktree under the legacy contract.
- Distinctive: line 78
Verify the summary exists, roadmap folding agrees, old task-path references are gone, the selected stale directory is removed, and event …
- Distinctive: line 116
Update incoming/outgoing history links before legacy directory cleanup.
- Distinctive: line 147
Before writing roadmap-chain deliverables, apply the language contract.
- Distinctive: line 148
Read the user instruction, consuming-project policy and existing artifact first.
- Distinctive: line 156
Keep archived originals in their historical language.
≈ “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
Archive Roadmap History
Purpose and boundaries
Produce a lean, source-backed snapshot and fold historical roadmap detail. The
historical invocation name remains archive-milestone. Under the
Roadmap Spec, a milestone is an event, a phase is
a work span and a version groups delivery scope. Archiving history does not change
those meanings or establish completion.
Use the general snapshot route for a phase, version, year/period or a milestone's
associated work. Use the legacy route only for an existing
milestones/{slug}/tasks.md work package. Do not invent or migrate directories.
Both routes load roadmap-quality and project norms.
Preserve event identity, criterion, state, timing and evidence. An approval/release
point is not a task group to delete; task completion is not acceptance or release.
Inputs
- Named phase, version, period or legacy work-package slug.
- Existing source records, closure evidence, project archive location and policy.
apply, defaultfalse: preview without writes. Respect explicit existing user authorization to apply; do not ask for the same authorization again.
General snapshot route
- Resolve target, selected roadmap views and project archive policy. Report an undefined eligibility policy rather than inventing numeric thresholds. An explicit request to archive a named period can establish selection/eligibility, but cannot establish completion of unfinished work.
- Read authoritative scope, acceptance and release evidence. Preserve separate approval and execution states. A reached, missed or cancelled event needs its evidence; do not infer occurrence from dates or completed tasks.
- Draft a dated snapshot: scope, planned versus actual timing, outcomes (at most five key deliverables), linked evidence, decisions/ADRs, retained events and unresolved work with continuing destinations. Freeze snapshot facts; ongoing records remain authoritative. Do not mark unfinished year-end work completed.
- Preview exact file changes, roadmap folding, incoming links and carryover.
With
apply=false, change no files. With authorizedapply=true, create the snapshot and update active-view references while preserving source evidence. No directory removal occurs on this route. - Verify snapshot/source agreement, incoming/outgoing links and visibility of all unfinished work. Report changes and unverified evidence.
Legacy work-package route
This compatibility route preserves the established maturity and cleanup behavior;
its milestones/ name does not define the domain model.
- Read
milestones/{slug}/tasks.md. Every task must be done (the project'sstatus=doneor completed-checkmark convention). In addition, at least one maturity condition must hold:- At least 60 days since the source
completed_atdate. - The current in-progress legacy work-package numeric index is at least the target slug's index plus two. If neither holds, report the specific reason and stop without changes. These thresholds do not apply to independent events or the general snapshot route.
- At least 60 days since the source
- Check source closure criteria and acceptance/release evidence before folding anything as completed. All tasks done is only an archive prerequisite. If closure evidence is missing, leave the completion claim unresolved and report the gap.
- Produce
milestones/_archive/{slug}-summary.mdcontaining completion date, at most five deliverables, evidence, decisions/ADRs, event history and gaps with continuing destinations. Retain key source facts needed after task cleanup. - Find every incoming task-path reference and the historical roadmap section.
Preview the summary, a folded reference of at most three lines, each reference
update and exact directory cleanup.
apply=falsechanges nothing. - Before authorized
apply=true, require a clean Git worktree under the legacy contract. Do not commit unrelated work to satisfy this check. Preserve required evidence outside the directory before cleanup; an incomplete summary or dangling reference blocks removal. Update references before removing the stale directory. - Verify the summary exists, roadmap folding agrees, old task-path references are gone, the selected stale directory is removed, and event evidence plus unfinished-item destinations still resolve.
Anti-patterns
- Treating a milestone event as a phase or a release group.
- Applying legacy maturity thresholds or directory deletion to every event.
- Inferring production release or approval from completed tasks or a target date.
- Removing source evidence with stale task files.
- Dropping deferred work or retaining a false completion claim in an archive.
- Writing files during preview or requiring duplicate authorization.
Self-Check
- Target and route match the actual project structure; required resources loaded.
- General eligibility or legacy maturity/task checks pass as applicable.
- Completion and event states agree with source evidence; unknowns remain explicit.
- Summary retains scope, timing, deliverables, evidence, ADRs, event history and gaps.
- Every unfinished item has a visible continuing destination.
- Preview/apply scope and the legacy clean-worktree requirement are respected.
- Applied changes preserve links/evidence and satisfy the selected route's cleanup checks.
Examples
/archive-milestone m3: preview an existing legacy work package. If all tasks are done and it completed 60 days ago, maturity passes even if only m4 is active.- A legacy m5 completed 14 days ago with m5 active fails maturity; retry after 60 days or when m7 is active. Do not create a snapshot or change the roadmap.
- Archive V1 after search moves to V2: retain V1's actual scope and continuing assignments, including its acceptance/release events. See the filled version archive.
Revision history maintenance
Both archive routes preserve revision IDs, dates, reasons, impacts and linked source evidence under the revision contract. Include the relevant history or a resolving retained-history link in the snapshot. Update incoming/outgoing history links before legacy directory cleanup. A broken history destination blocks cleanup. If archival changes active scope or commitments, record that planning decision once; moving historical files alone need not create another planning revision. Never silently prune older decisions or backfill unknowns.
Self-check: material changes are traceable, retained links resolve, and repeated execution adds no duplicate revision.
Iteration snapshots and document navigation
An iteration uses the general period-snapshot route, never the legacy maturity thresholds. A finished timebox may contain unfinished requirements: retain goals, source-backed results or unknowns, actual observations and explicit carry-over links without claiming completion or release. Keep the active main roadmap useful; refresh main/detail/back links and preserve full revision evidence before folding history. Archiving a generated view never deletes its source board or decisions.
Self-check: iteration closure is separate from requirement/version closure; carry-over, source evidence and main/detail navigation survive archival.
Preserve scenario evidence
Retain the chosen combination, rationale and source context in snapshots or a resolving decision link. Reuse active views/layout/destination when folding history; archival does not select a new recipe or require a new intake interview. Preserve flow policy/measurement evidence when archiving a flow period; do not infer completed work from the calendar or impose legacy milestone maturity on a flow period.
Self-check: selection evidence, continuing work and navigation survive archival.
Deliverable language
Before writing roadmap-chain deliverables, apply the language contract. Read the user instruction, consuming-project policy and existing artifact first; retain a settled choice across handoffs. For a new artifact infer only from consistent reader/document evidence; ask only unresolved gaps or winning-level conflicts. Conversation language and English templates alone do not select artifact language. Record the choice and source in existing norms/planning decisions; no new mandatory configuration. Localize all new prose and display labels consistently while preserving IDs, machine fields, canonical enums, source links and historical originals.
Keep archived originals in their historical language. Apply the retained language to newly written archive summaries, disposition reports and navigation; a translation is an aligned summary, never a replacement for original evidence.
Self-check: language evidence and retained choice are explicit; all new display prose is consistent, machine contracts are unchanged, and unavailable checks are reported.
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.

