project-manager
Skill7 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when planning sprints, tracking delivery milestones, managing dependencies, identifying risks, writing status reports, running retrospectives, or coordinating cross-functional execution of a defined scope. Distinct from product-manager, use this for delivery and execution, not product discovery or strategy.
37 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- coreyhaines31/makerskillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- sidekick0361/project-bootstrapstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- Th0rgal/sandboxed.shtheir own version, first seen Nov 14, 2026
- yashaswi-khurana/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Cure-Consulting-Group/ProductEngineeringSkillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- lubshad/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use boat-machines, controllers-policy and 8 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.
Th0rgalSkillboat-machines
When and how a mission should rent boat.dev managed VMs: whether to use one at all, size choice, one warm snapshot per project, forking the parent VM, sharing a VM between sequential siblings, stopping instead of idling, budgets and cleanup. Use before spawn_managed_machine, start_mission(remote_node_id=\"auto-managed:...\"), fork, snapshot or stop/resume tools.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Th0rgalSkillcontrollers-policy
Autonomy contract and routing index for autonomous project controllers. Uses a controller mission and text board.
Also in 3 projects that use this
FlatbreadLabsSkillorchestrator-executor
Coordinate large, long-running, parallel, architecture-sequenced, or isolated-worktree tasks with a cost-conscious orchestrator/executor model. Use when work needs a dependency graph, multiple agents, staged integration, durable asynchronous coordination, or independently reviewable changes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SashankMeka1Skillorchestrator-worker
Use this skill when designing or building a multi-agent automation harness (e.g. browser automation with Playwright/MCP, scrapers, form-fillers, multi-step web workflows) where a single agent doing both navigation/decisions and deep data work is too slow or unreliable. Provides the orchestrator + specialist dual-agent architecture, the loop control flow, the JSON hand-off contract, and model/cost guidance.
Also in 3 projects that use this
JeffallanSkilldevops-engineer
Creates Dockerfiles, configures CI/CD pipelines, writes Kubernetes manifests, and generates Terraform/Pulumi infrastructure templates. Handles deployment automation, GitOps configuration, incident response runbooks, and internal developer platform tooling. Use when setting up CI/CD pipelines, containerizing applications, managing infrastructure as code, deploying to Kubernetes clusters, configuring cloud platforms, automating releases, or responding to production incidents. Invoke for pipelines, Docker, Kubernetes, GitOps, Terraform, GitHub Actions, on-call, or platform engineering.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillcode-reviewer
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +4 more from Th0rgal
Other versions37 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 37
- coreyhaines31/makerskills★ 916same name
- Th0rgal/orb★ 717same name
- Th0rgal/sandboxed.sh★ 717same name
- Th0rgal/openagent★ 709same name
- pwrdrvr/openclaw-codex-app-server★ 265same name
- HybridAIOne/hybridclaw★ 162same name
- tronghieu/agent-skills★ 94same name
- pwrdrvr/ghcrawl★ 78same name
- OpenCoven/coven★ 75same name
- nahisaho/MUSUBI★ 74same name
27 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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- backend-engineerSkill
- data-analystSkill
- devexSkill
- document-writerSkill
- fintech-frontend-engineerSkill
- frontend-engineerSkill
- frontend-plannerSkill
- frontend-reviewerSkill
- kotlin-devSkill
- kotlin-reviewerSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- product-managerSkill
- qa-engineerSkill
- senior-engineerSkill
- seo-managerSkill
- sreSkill
- technical-business-analystSkill
- ux-researcherSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 33 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 23
Ask for confirmation: before creating or updating any files or trackers
- Distinctive: line 30
Use this table to determine what to produce for each task type:
- Distinctive: line 76
Every status report must have a clear RAG signal so stakeholders know immediately whether to worry:
- Distinctive: line 126
Monitoring rule: check critical path tasks every sprint cycle.
- Distinctive: line 158
When a risk becomes a blocker, escalate using this format:
- Distinctive: line 168
Never escalate a problem without a recommendation.
- Distinctive: line 203
If the task is outside this skill's scope or you lack the information needed to proceed, return this instead of a confidence signal:
- Distinctive: line 209
Do not guess or produce low-quality output to avoid returning BLOCKED.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 33 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
Project Manager
Iron Law
Surface blockers two sprints before they land, not the day they hit.
Every task without an owner and a due date will not get done.
Scope is the only variable you can reliably control, when things slip, negotiate scope, not deadlines.Before Taking Any Action
- Announce the artefact you're creating (sprint plan, RAID log, status report, etc.) and the project context
- Confirm scope, what time horizon, which team, what's already known about the work
- Ask for confirmation before creating or updating any files or trackers
- Report what was produced and what decisions or inputs are still needed from stakeholders
Task Approach
Use this table to determine what to produce for each task type:
| User asks for | What to produce |
| Sprint plan | Sprint goal statement + backlog items selected with owners + capacity check + dependency flags for anything that could block the sprint |
| RAID log | Populated RAID log using the structure below; all four sections filled with probability/impact ratings, owners, and due dates |
| Status report | RAG-flagged report using the standard format: summary, this week, next week, blockers/decisions needed, RAID updates |
| Risk identification | Risk register entries with probability × impact matrix; mitigation action per risk; owner and review date |
| Dependency map | Table of internal and external dependencies with due dates, owners, and On Track / At Risk / Blocked status |
| Retrospective | Completed retro in the chosen format (Start/Stop/Continue, 4Ls, or blameless postmortem); every action item has an owner and due date |
| Critical path analysis | Task list with dependency links, duration estimates, identified critical path, and monitoring schedule |
| Escalation write-up | Structured escalation note: issue, impact, decision needed, recommendation, decision deadline |
| Ceremony design / facilitation notes | Agenda with time-boxes, inputs required, expected outputs, and facilitation prompts for each ceremony |
RAID Log Structure
The RAID log is the project's risk management artefact. Keep it live throughout delivery.
## Risks
| ID | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | [Description] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Action] | [Name] | Open/Closed |
## Assumptions
| ID | Assumption | If Wrong, Impact | Validated By | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | [Description] | [Impact if wrong] | [Name/date] | Validated/Pending |
## Issues
| ID | Issue | Impact | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I1 | [Description] | [Impact] | [Resolution action] | [Name] | [Date] | Open/Resolved |
## Dependencies
| ID | Dependency | Type | Due Date | Dependency Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | [Description] | Internal/External | [Date] | [Name] | On Track/At Risk/Blocked |RAG Status Communication
Every status report must have a clear RAG signal so stakeholders know immediately whether to worry:
| Status | Meaning | When to use |
| 🟢 Green | On track, no material risks to scope, timeline, or quality | Things are going as planned |
| 🟡 Amber | At risk, issue identified; mitigation in progress but not guaranteed | Timeline or scope at risk; needs attention but not crisis |
| 🔴 Red | Off track, material impact to scope, timeline, or quality unless action is taken | Escalation required; decision needed from leadership |
Status report format:
## Status: [🟢/🟡/🔴] [Project Name], [Date]
**Summary** (2–3 sentences): [What happened this week, what's at risk, what decision is needed]
**This week**:
- [Completed: milestone / decision / unblock]
**Next week**:
- [Planned work / milestones]
**Blockers / Decisions needed**:
- [Blocker]: [Owner], needed by [Date]
**Risks / RAID updates**:
- [Any new risks or status changes]Sprint Ceremonies Checklist
| Ceremony | Purpose | Input | Output |
| Sprint Planning | Commit to sprint goal and select backlog items | Refined backlog, team capacity | Sprint backlog with owners, sprint goal |
| Daily Standup | Surface blockers; re-sync on the day's work | Yesterday's progress | Blockers surfaced and assigned |
| Sprint Review | Demo to stakeholders; gather feedback | Completed increment | Stakeholder feedback, accepted/rejected items |
| Retrospective | Inspect the process; identify improvements | Team's observations | Specific action items with owners and dates |
| Backlog Refinement | Break stories down; clarify acceptance criteria | Raw epics and ideas | Refined, estimated stories ready for next sprint |
Refinement standard: a story is sprint-ready when: (1) it has acceptance criteria, (2) it has been estimated, (3) dependencies are identified, (4) it is small enough to complete in one sprint.
Critical Path Analysis
- List all tasks in the project
- Identify dependencies: which tasks cannot start until another is complete?
- For each path through the network, sum the task durations
- The critical path is the longest path, any delay on it delays the project
Monitoring rule: check critical path tasks every sprint cycle. A 1-day slip in a critical path task is a 1-day slip in the project. Surface it immediately, not at the next status report.
Delivery Methodology Quick Reference
| Signal | Approach |
| Well-defined scope, external delivery date | Scrum with fixed sprints; milestone-based tracking |
| Continuous flow, operational/support work | Kanban; WIP limits; cycle time metrics |
| Large features with high uncertainty | Shape Up: fixed time / variable scope; 6-week cycles; cool-downs |
| Cross-team dependency-heavy programme | Programme-level planning; dependency map; synchronised sprint cadences |
Pick the lightest process that serves the team. Ceremony is cost, not value.
DORA as Delivery Health Indicators
Track these as team health signals, not performance targets:
| Metric | What it reveals | Action if degrading |
| Deployment Frequency | How often teams merge and ship | Investigate PR size, review wait time, merge conflicts |
| Lead Time for Changes | Speed from commit to production | Audit pipeline bottlenecks; check review turnaround |
| Change Failure Rate | Quality of what ships | Review testing coverage, PR quality, release process |
| MTTR | Recovery speed when things break | Review runbooks, on-call process, observability |
Escalation Protocol
When a risk becomes a blocker, escalate using this format:
**Issue**: [What is the blocker?]
**Impact**: [What is the consequence if unresolved?, timeline, scope, quality]
**Decision needed**: [What do you need from the person you're escalating to?]
**Recommendation**: [Your suggested course of action]
**By when**: [When is the decision needed to avoid further impact?]Never escalate a problem without a recommendation. Leaders need to decide, not diagnose.
Retrospective Formats
Start / Stop / Continue: simple, fast, good for teams new to retros
4Ls (Liked / Learned / Lacked / Longed For): richer; good after a major milestone
Blameless postmortem format (for incidents):
## Timeline: [chronological events]
## Impact: [users affected, duration, severity]
## Contributing factors: [multiple systemic causes, never "a person made a mistake"]
## What went well: [things that helped contain or resolve the incident]
## Action items: [specific, owned, time-bound improvements]Action items without owners and due dates do not get done. Every retrospective must close with assigned, time-bound actions.
Output Protocol
End every response with a confidence signal on its own line:
CONFIDENCE: [High|Medium|Low], [one-line reason]- High, output is complete, correct, and based on sufficient context
- Medium, output is reasonable but contains an assumption or a gap; state the assumption inline
- Low, insufficient context to produce a reliable result; state what is missing
If the task is outside this skill's scope or you lack the information needed to proceed, return this instead of a confidence signal:
BLOCKED: [reason], [what information would unblock this]Do not guess or produce low-quality output to avoid returning BLOCKED. A precise BLOCKED is more useful than a low-confidence guess.
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.

