shipping-and-launch
Skill560 starsChanged 50 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Prepares production launches. Use when preparing to deploy to production, or when asking what needs to be in place before shipping. Use when you need a pre-launch checklist, when setting up monitoring, when planning a staged rollout, or when you need a rollback strategy.
- Commits and pushes
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 7 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
7
Common
Most of the 54 edited versions we read keep these.
0
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
- Common: line 105
Every feature flag has an owner and an expiration date
- Common: line 107
Don't nest feature flags (creates exponential combinations)
- Common: line 108
Test both flag states (on and off) in CI
- Common: line 144
Use these thresholds to decide whether to advance, hold, or roll back at each stage:
- Common: line 253
Every deployment needs a rollback plan before it happens:
- Common: line 301
No monitoring or error reporting in production
- Common: line 304
No one monitoring the deploy for the first hour
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 54 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
Shipping and Launch
Overview
Ship with confidence. The goal is not just to deploy — it's to deploy safely, with monitoring in place, a rollback plan ready, and a clear understanding of what success looks like. Every launch should be reversible, observable, and incremental.
When to Use
- Deploying a feature to production for the first time
- Releasing a significant change to users
- Migrating data or infrastructure
- Opening a beta or early access program
- Any deployment that carries risk (all of them)
The Pre-Launch Checklist
Code Quality
- All tests pass (unit, integration, e2e)
- Build succeeds with no warnings
- Lint and type checking pass
- Code reviewed and approved
- No TODO comments that should be resolved before launch
- No
console.logdebugging statements in production code - Error handling covers expected failure modes
Security
- No secrets in code or version control
- The ecosystem's dependency audit (
npm audit,pip-audit,cargo audit, ...) shows no critical or high vulnerabilities - Input validation on all user-facing endpoints
- Authentication and authorization checks in place
- Security headers configured (CSP, HSTS, etc.)
- Rate limiting on authentication endpoints
- CORS configured to specific origins (not wildcard)
Performance
- Core Web Vitals within "Good" thresholds
- No N+1 queries in critical paths
- Images optimized (compression, responsive sizes, lazy loading)
- Bundle size within budget
- Database queries have appropriate indexes
- Caching configured for static assets and repeated queries
Accessibility
- Keyboard navigation works for all interactive elements
- Screen reader can convey page content and structure
- Color contrast meets WCAG 2.1 AA (4.5:1 for text)
- Focus management correct for modals and dynamic content
- Error messages are descriptive and associated with form fields
- No accessibility warnings in axe-core or Lighthouse
Infrastructure
- Environment variables set in production
- Database migrations applied (or ready to apply)
- DNS and SSL configured
- CDN configured for static assets
- Logging and error reporting configured
- Health check endpoint exists and responds
Documentation
- README updated with any new setup requirements
- API documentation current
- ADRs written for any architectural decisions
- Changelog updated
- User-facing documentation updated (if applicable)
Feature Flag Strategy
Ship behind feature flags to decouple deployment from release:
// Feature flag check
const flags = await getFeatureFlags(userId);
if (flags.taskSharing) {
// New feature: task sharing
return <TaskSharingPanel task={task} />;
}
// Default: existing behavior
return null;Feature flag lifecycle:
1. DEPLOY with flag OFF → Code is in production but inactive
2. ENABLE for team/beta → Internal testing in production environment
3. GRADUAL ROLLOUT → 5% → 25% → 50% → 100% of users
4. MONITOR at each stage → Watch error rates, performance, user feedback
5. CLEAN UP → Remove flag and dead code path after full rolloutRules:
- Every feature flag has an owner and an expiration date
- Clean up flags within 2 weeks of full rollout
- Don't nest feature flags (creates exponential combinations)
- Test both flag states (on and off) in CI
Staged Rollout
The Rollout Sequence
1. DEPLOY to staging
└── Full test suite in staging environment
└── Manual smoke test of critical flows
2. DEPLOY to production (feature flag OFF)
└── Verify deployment succeeded (health check)
└── Check error monitoring (no new errors)
3. ENABLE for team (flag ON for internal users)
└── Team uses the feature in production
└── 24-hour monitoring window
4. CANARY rollout (flag ON for 5% of users)
└── Monitor error rates, latency, user behavior
└── Compare metrics: canary vs. baseline
└── 24-48 hour monitoring window
└── Advance only if all thresholds pass (see table below)
5. GRADUAL increase (25% -> 50% -> 100%)
└── Same monitoring at each step
└── Ability to roll back to previous percentage at any point
6. FULL rollout (flag ON for all users)
└── Monitor for 1 week
└── Clean up feature flagRollout Decision Thresholds
Use these thresholds to decide whether to advance, hold, or roll back at each stage:
| Metric | Advance (green) | Hold and investigate (yellow) | Roll back (red) |
| Error rate | Within 10% of baseline | 10-100% above baseline | >2x baseline |
| P95 latency | Within 20% of baseline | 20-50% above baseline | >50% above baseline |
| Client JS errors | No new error types | New errors at <0.1% of sessions | New errors at >0.1% of sessions |
| Business metrics | Neutral or positive | Decline <5% (may be noise) | Decline >5% |
When to Roll Back
Roll back immediately if:
- Error rate increases by more than 2x baseline
- P95 latency increases by more than 50%
- User-reported issues spike
- Data integrity issues detected
- Security vulnerability discovered
Monitoring and Observability
What to Monitor
Application metrics:
├── Error rate (total and by endpoint)
├── Response time (p50, p95, p99)
├── Request volume
├── Active users
└── Key business metrics (conversion, engagement)
Infrastructure metrics:
├── CPU and memory utilization
├── Database connection pool usage
├── Disk space
├── Network latency
└── Queue depth (if applicable)
Client metrics:
├── Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS)
├── JavaScript errors
├── API error rates from client perspective
└── Page load timeError Reporting
// Set up error boundary with reporting
class ErrorBoundary extends React.Component {
componentDidCatch(error: Error, info: React.ErrorInfo) {
// Report to error tracking service
reportError(error, {
componentStack: info.componentStack,
userId: getCurrentUser()?.id,
page: window.location.pathname,
});
}
render() {
if (this.state.hasError) {
return <ErrorFallback onRetry={() => this.setState({ hasError: false })} />;
}
return this.props.children;
}
}
// Server-side error reporting
app.use((err: Error, req: Request, res: Response, next: NextFunction) => {
reportError(err, {
method: req.method,
url: req.url,
userId: req.user?.id,
});
// Don't expose internals to users
res.status(500).json({
error: { code: 'INTERNAL_ERROR', message: 'Something went wrong' },
});
});Post-Launch Verification
In the first hour after launch:
1. Check health endpoint returns 200
2. Check error monitoring dashboard (no new error types)
3. Check latency dashboard (no regression)
4. Test the critical user flow manually
5. Verify logs are flowing and readable
6. Confirm rollback mechanism works (dry run if possible)Error Budget Release Gate
Your service's error budget — the fraction of requests or time your SLO allows to fail — determines whether it's safe to ship. Use it as an objective gate — not a negotiation:
Budget remaining > 20% → Ship normally; monitor closely
Budget remaining 0–20% → Slow rollouts only; no high-risk changes
Budget exhausted → Freeze feature work; focus entirely on reliability
Budget resets → Resume normal pace; bake in the fix that recovered itA high burn rate during a canary (consuming budget faster than the baseline pace) is a hold signal in the rollout thresholds table above — treat it the same as an elevated error rate.
Rollback Strategy
Every deployment needs a rollback plan before it happens:
## Rollback Plan for [Feature/Release]
### Trigger Conditions
- Error rate > 2x baseline
- P95 latency > [X]ms
- User reports of [specific issue]
### Rollback Steps
1. Disable feature flag (if applicable)
OR
1. Deploy previous version: `git revert <commit> && git push`
2. Verify rollback: health check, error monitoring
3. Communicate: notify team of rollback
### Database Considerations
- Migration [X] has a rollback: `npx prisma migrate rollback`
- Data inserted by new feature: [preserved / cleaned up]
### Time to Rollback
- Feature flag: < 1 minute
- Redeploy previous version: < 5 minutes
- Database rollback: < 15 minutesSee Also
- For the project-wide Definition of Done that every change must clear before this checklist, see
../../references/definition-of-done.md - For security pre-launch checks, see
../../references/security-checklist.md - For performance pre-launch checklist, see
../../references/performance-checklist.md - For accessibility verification before launch, see
../../references/accessibility-checklist.md - For the alerting rules and SLO-tied thresholds, see
observability-and-instrumentation
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
| "It works in staging, it'll work in production" | Production has different data, traffic patterns, and edge cases. Monitor after deploy. |
| "We don't need feature flags for this" | Every feature benefits from a kill switch. Even "simple" changes can break things. |
| "Monitoring is overhead" | Not having monitoring means you discover problems from user complaints instead of dashboards. |
| "We'll add monitoring later" | Add it before launch. You can't debug what you can't see. |
| "Rolling back is admitting failure" | Rolling back is responsible engineering. Shipping a broken feature is the failure. |
| "The error rate looks fine, let's keep shipping" | Check the burn rate, not just the current error rate. Consuming budget faster than baseline is a hold signal even when individual thresholds are green. |
Red Flags
- Deploying without a rollback plan
- No monitoring or error reporting in production
- Big-bang releases (everything at once, no staging)
- Feature flags with no expiration or owner
- No one monitoring the deploy for the first hour
- Production environment configuration done by memory, not code
- "It's Friday afternoon, let's ship it"
- Error budget exhausted but feature work continues unchanged
Verification
Before deploying:
- Pre-launch checklist completed (all sections green)
- Feature flag configured (if applicable)
- Rollback plan documented
- Monitoring dashboards set up
- Team notified of deployment
After deploying:
- Health check returns 200
- Error rate is normal
- Latency is normal
- Critical user flow works
- Logs are flowing
- Rollback tested or verified ready
For every shipped service:
- Error budget policy in place: know what action to take when budget drops below 20% and when it's exhausted
Other versions63 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- Marvellbrazil/my-agentic-skills★ 4100% same
- dimsdeall/craftwhale★ 0100% same
Edited · 47
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 112k98% same
- ollaya-dev/ollaya★ 1.4k100% same
- shashankswe2020-ux/whoop-mcp★ 17498% same
- vinvcn/addyosmani-agent-skills-zh★ 4651% same
- sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 2498% same
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 2298% same
- HK-hub/AgentSkills★ 698% same
- lza6/claw-code-tingfeng★ 598% same
- dzevs/zynk★ 423% same
- PenceZHR/stagepass★ 498% same
37 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 14
- jmxt3/gitscape.ai★ 33same name
- ddddjaak/ae-skills★ 4same name
- oleg494/coding-kit★ 3same name
- bnalwalid/walidforge-skills★ 2same name
- codexskills/agent-forge★ 2same name
- GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android★ 2same name
- NashEQify/forge★ 2same name
- Aleksandr-Litvinenko/agent-skills-ru★ 1same name
- celestialdust/achilles-skills★ 1same name
- Chrike/coding-agent-skills★ 1same name
4 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use doubt-driven-development, source-driven-development and 6 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.
seikaikyoSkilldoubt-driven-development
對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查(找碴不背書),在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用:高風險改動(production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作)、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。
Also in 44 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillsource-driven-development
Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.
Also in 39 projects that use this
skytiger6724Skillbrainstorm-experiments-existing
Design experiments to test assumptions for an existing product — prototypes, A/B tests, spikes, and other low-effort validation methods. Use when validating assumptions, testing feature ideas cheaply, or planning product experiments.
Also in 4 projects that use this
skytiger6724Skillpositioning-ideas
Brainstorm product positioning ideas differentiated from competitors. Identifies top competitors and generates positioning statements with rationale. Use when developing product positioning, differentiating from competitors, or crafting brand positioning strategy.
Also in 4 projects that use this
45ckSkillpestle-analysis
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +3 more from skytiger6724
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- constraint-driven-developmentSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- get-designSkill
- get-prdSkill
- get-schemaSkill
- get-tasksSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- observability-and-instrumentationSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- using-agent-skillsSkill
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.

