production-context
Skill64 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when changing, reviewing, debugging, deploying, or documenting production-sensitive work involving providers, releases, migrations, auth, billing, webhooks, env vars, incidents, rollback notes, fragile customer paths, or architecture boundaries.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .cursor/rules/viberaven-core.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/viberaven-deploy.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/viberaven-payments.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/viberaven-supabase-rls.mdcCursor rule
- llms-full.txtllms.txt
- llms.txtllms.txt
- viberavenSkill
- viberavenSkill
- architecture-contextSkill
- architecture-planSkill
- go-liveSkill
- vercel-supabase-launch-checkSkill
- viberavenSkill
- what-brokeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 4 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.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Keep memory small enough to reuse in the next agent action.
- Distinctive: line 22
Create it when allowed and missing.
- Distinctive: line 30
Read the current file before production-sensitive work.
- Distinctive: line 32
Use repo evidence first: git status, tags, changelog, PR links, diffs, migrations, env examples, tests.
- Very specific: line 33
Use VibeRaven/provider MCP evidence when available for provider state, release history, and dashboard-adjacent receipts.
- Very specific: line 37
When the output names Next skill:, continue with that VibeRaven skill unless user input, auth, or provider proof is required.
- Very specific: line 39
Use Next skill: go-live when context is recorded and the next step is deploy/live proof.
- Very specific: line 72
Use unknown from repo when provider state is not proven.
≈ “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
VibeRaven: Production Context
Repo context says what exists. Production context says what is dangerous.
Hard Rule
Keep memory small enough to reuse in the next agent action. Do not create a report dump.
File
Maintain:
.viberaven/production-context.mdCreate it when allowed and missing. Otherwise propose the exact entry.
Loop
read -> isolate risk -> fix/propose -> verify -> record -> open action- Read the current file before production-sensitive work.
- Identify one relevant boundary: release, auth, data/RLS, provider dashboard, deploy/env, job/webhook, billing, storage, or customer path.
- Use repo evidence first: git status, tags, changelog, PR links, diffs, migrations, env examples, tests.
- Use VibeRaven/provider MCP evidence when available for provider state, release history, and dashboard-adjacent receipts.
- Record only what changes the next decision.
- Separate repo fixes from provider/human actions.
When the output names Next skill:, continue with that VibeRaven skill unless user input, auth, or provider proof is required.
Use Next skill: go-live when context is recorded and the next step is deploy/live proof. Use Next skill: what-broke when context shows a version/release regression. Use Next skill: architecture-context when the risk reveals an unclear product boundary.
File Shape
# VibeRaven Production Context
## Current Release / Change Window
## Recent Changes
## Architecture Boundaries
## Provider Boundaries
## Migration And Data History
## Incidents And Rollback Notes
## Fragile Customer Paths
## Verification Receipts
## Open Provider Or Human ActionsEntry Shape
### YYYY-MM-DD - short label
- Change:
- Evidence:
- Boundary:
- Danger:
- Repo fix:
- Verification:
- Provider/MCP proof:
- Open action:Use unknown from repo when provider state is not proven.
Output
Context read:
Context updated/proposed:
Boundary:
Repo action:
Provider/MCP action:
Next skill:
Next:Mistakes
- Copying long logs instead of linking commands, files, PRs, screenshots, or receipts.
- Claiming provider dashboards are fixed by repo edits.
- Asking for passwords, tokens, cookies, private keys, signing secrets, or raw env values.
- Recording generic notes that will not change a future agent decision.
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.

