github-workflow
Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when target-authoritative Git/GitHub branch topology, commits, pushes, promotion, or GitHub Actions must be governed without inventing branches.
23 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Gogo-Bytes/blogtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- yaqob3653/vlypse-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLStheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AlvaroVFon/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- MattoYuzuru/yuzuru-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- lcx9451/dsh-engineering-skill-packtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use marketing-psychology, copywriting and 4 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.
SentrySkillmarketing-psychology
When the user wants to apply psychological principles, mental models, or behavioral science to marketing. Also use when the user mentions 'psychology,' 'mental models,' 'cognitive bias,' 'persuasion,' 'behavioral science,' 'why people buy,' 'decision-making,' or 'consumer behavior.' This skill provides 70+ mental models organized for marketing application.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SupabaseSkillcopywriting
Write or audit UI copy (buttons, labels, empty states, error messages, tooltips, form text) anywhere in the monorepo. Load it before shipping or reviewing any user-facing text — including when copy is incidental to the task, like a new feature that adds buttons, toasts, dialogs, or validation messages.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillgit-workflow
Squad branching model: dev-first workflow with insiders preview channel
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillskill-creator
Create new agent skills following the Agent Skills specification. Use when asked to "create a skill", "add a new skill", "write a skill", "make a skill", "build a skill", or scaffold a new skill with SKILL.md. Guides through requirements, writing, registration, and verification.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 3 projects that use this
BlockSkillfrontend-design
Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, or applications. Generates creative, polished code that avoids generic AI aesthetics.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions23 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 23
- massCodeIO/massCode★ 7.1ksame name
- huynhsontung/Screenbox★ 4.7ksame name
- Mindrally/skills★ 275same name
- amanning3390/hermeshub★ 48same name
- drewid74/ai_skills★ 8same name
- rloisell/rl-agents-n-skills★ 8same name
- zajca/pohunek★ 8same name
- berkeley-humanoids/skills★ 4same name
- berkeley-humanoids/Skills★ 4same name
- Kur1sulab/blackbox★ 3same name
13 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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- adversarial-auditSkill
- architectSkill
- cloud-run-basicsSkill
- debuggingSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- executorSkill
- gap-analysisSkill
- optimizationSkill
- reliabilitySkill
- researchSkill
- reuse-firstSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- simplicitySkill
- verificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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 14
Never infer or create staging merely because DEV_STAGING_MAIN is supported.
- Very specific: line 55
Do not auto-promote after push, review, CI, or verifier success.
- Very specific: line 59
After exact promotion, derive PROMOTED_NOT_RELEASED until all separately authorized release actions are complete.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 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
GitHub Workflow
Repository-specific branch policy and exact live refs outrank generic defaults. This existing workflow owner supports three target-authoritative topologies:
MAIN_ONLY: one working/stablemain-style branch when target authority says so.DEV_MAIN: mutabledevintegration plus stablemain; this preserves backward compatibility for existing dev/main repositories.DEV_STAGING_MAIN:dev→staging→mainonly when explicitly activated by target authority.
Never infer or create staging merely because DEV_STAGING_MAIN is supported. Never create any branch from a generic topology default; branch creation always needs explicit target/task authority. Branch names and roles come from target authority, not this skill.
Before writes
Refresh exact repository, target branch, remote HEAD, expected base, repository-specific branch policy, write authority, workflow triggers, and the semantic capabilities required for the current phase when that mutable evidence is required by the pending consequence. Treat authorized remote Git state as canonical repository truth; local state is an execution copy. A fetch is an observation mutation that may update LOCAL_MUTABLE remote-tracking refs; a local commit is an authorized target-ref mutation when task authority permits it; an authorized push/promotion/report-or-review publication is a canonical publication mutation. Immediately before canonical publication, freshly resolve the REMOTE_MUTABLE refs/topology that gate the write, and after publication freshly prove the resulting remote identity. If the remote branch moved, that remote drift invalidates stale authority and fails closed. If a current-phase capability is unavailable, block before mutation. Do not require a later-phase capability to finish an earlier authorized phase.
A local clean/behind copy may be synchronized when authorized; local ahead or local dirty state is divergence or unknown work and must not be auto-pushed, reset, deleted, or silently adopted as authority.
task.git_authority governs Executor Git mutations. create_branch, commit, push, and promotion are independent. When create_branch: false, do not invoke branch creation even for tests or temporary work. Commit does not imply push, force push, stable-branch mutation, or promotion.
release_authority is separate again: create_version_tag, mutate_repository_metadata, and publish_release are independent permissions and are never inferred from commit, push, or promotion.
Semantic capability preflight
Use phase-specific semantic requirements rather than equating authority with whichever API happens to exist. Route from required capability and evidence: resolve currently available candidates, reject candidates lacking current authority or sufficient evidence, then choose the lowest sufficient expected cost/resource burden. When materially equivalent, prefer fewer context transfers and lower consequence. Cheaper/free never permits weaker correctness, exact identity, acceptance evidence, safety, or required native/remote verification.
Availability, quota, rate limits, and paid capacity are runtime evidence. Installation, provider identity, historical availability, or an earlier preflight does not prove current availability after material environment/quota change. If the selected surface becomes unavailable or quota-limited, fallback may use only another currently available candidate that is already authorized and still sufficient for the same required capability/evidence; otherwise use an explicitly permitted degraded mode or fail closed with the existing capability/blocking semantics. Do not create provider/account rotation, quota-evasion, credential-broker, or persistent availability registries.
EXECUTION: required repository content mutation and test/verification execution surfaces, including native verification when the task declares it mandatory for the current execution;REVIEW: exact commit/report resolution needed by the current governing Architect;VERIFICATION: designated authoritative exact-SHA verifier access;PROMOTION: non-force update of the authorized stable target ref to the exact candidate;RELEASE: only tag, repository-metadata, and release-publication capabilities for actions explicitly authorized.
Unavailable capability blocks only the current phase. For example, a successful promotion followed by missing release publication capability yields valid PROMOTED_NOT_RELEASED rather than invalidating promotion.
Promotion candidate lineage
Let R = reviewed_report.commit for the exact report accepted by Architect.
A valid promotion_candidate_head is only:
R; or- the single-parent direct child of
R, whose only parent isR, with that single commit containing only the expected Architect-owned review artifact.
A merge commit or empty child is not the permitted review-artifact child. Any implementation, unrelated documentation, cleanup, dependency change, other task commit, unrelated commit, or second post-review commit after R invalidates accepted lineage and requires a new report plus Architect review.
Canonical continuation does not derive a promotion branch from topology labels. Its expected_refs are zero or more explicit {ref, commit} identities, and canonical promotion uses PROMOTE_TARGET_REF plus promotion_target_ref; that target ref must be one of the expected refs so stale-target evidence is explicit. Existing expanded protocol-v3 expected_refs.dev/main plus PROMOTE_TO_MAIN remains compatibility input only and must not become the source of canonical branch-name assumptions.
Before promotion, refresh the candidate and the explicit promotion target ref, require the candidate ref equals the exact accepted candidate, require the target ref still equals its expected commit when that ref is part of the continuation snapshot, require authoritative verification to identify that exact SHA when required, require explicit promotion authority, and preflight promotion capability. If the candidate or required target ref changes after verification: REVERIFY / REVIEW_REQUIRED.
Do not auto-promote after push, review, CI, or verifier success. AUTO_UNTIL_STOP may only let orchestration dispatch an already-authorized promotion phase; it does not create promotion authority.
Release lifecycle
After exact promotion, derive PROMOTED_NOT_RELEASED until all separately authorized release actions are complete. Tag creation, repository metadata mutation, and GitHub Release publication are independent actions. Missing authority or capability stops the release phase without rolling back the validity of the completed promotion.
RELEASED requires completed authorized release actions plus final exact identity/state verification. Promotion and release are never implied by a previous phase.
GitHub Actions
For repositories that use DEV_MAIN, prefer one bounded push-to-integration validation workflow with relevant paths, one standard Linux job, read-only contents, immutable action pins, concurrency cancellation, short timeout, validator/tests, and no unnecessary dispatch, schedule, duplicate PR workflow, matrix, artifacts, cache, automatic rerun, larger runner, or paid external service. Other topologies use their target-authoritative integration/working branch rather than assuming dev.
Prefer one repository-owned deterministic verifier reused through whichever authorized surface is currently cheapest and sufficient. Local shell, Codex, Agent Runtime, and GitHub Actions should invoke the same verifier when feasible instead of carrying divergent verification logic. Independent deterministic local checks may be grouped into one bounded EXECUTION BUNDLE when the Executor/verification safety predicates hold; Git/ref publication remains serial. GitHub Actions is the bounded remote evidence boundary when exact task/target authority requires remote proof, not the default iterative debugger or mandatory development loop. ChatGPT+GitHub-only execution remains valid when no native-only capability is materially required.
Git success, CI success, Architect acceptance, authoritative project PASS, promotion authorization, actual promotion, release authorization, and actual release remain separate signals.
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.

