am-command-ship
Skill27 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run the pre-launch checklist via parallel fan-out to specialist personas, then synthesize a go/no-go decision
In this repository167 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- src/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-agent-targetSkill
- add-global-mode-targetSkill
- am-agent-code-debuggerSkill
- am-agent-code-documenterSkill
- am-agent-code-refactorSkill
- am-agent-code-reviewerSkill
- am-agent-code-security-auditorSkill
- am-agent-code-standards-enforcerSkill
- am-agent-security-auditorSkill
- am-agent-test-engineerSkill
- am-agent-test-runnerSkill
- am-agent-typescript-developerSkill
- am-command-buildSkill
- am-command-code-simplifySkill
- am-command-commitSkill
- am-command-planningSkill
- am-command-planSkill
- am-command-ponytail-auditSkill
- am-command-ponytail-debtSkill
- am-command-ponytail-gainSkill
- am-command-ponytail-helpSkill
- am-command-ponytail-reviewSkill
- am-command-ponytailSkill
- am-command-reviewSkill
- am-command-specSkill
- am-command-testSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- docs-and-examplesSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- doubt-driven-developmentSkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- handoffSkill
- homebrew-packagingSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- interview-meSkill
- lessonsSkill
- library-testingSkill
- package-release-engineeringSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- ponytail-auditSkill
- ponytail-debtSkill
- ponytail-gainSkill
- ponytail-helpSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 27
If you need teammates that talk to each other instead of just reporting back, use Claude Code Agent Teams and reference these personas as …
- Distinctive: line 74
If any persona returns a Critical finding, the default verdict is NO-GO unless the user explicitly accepts the risk.
≈ “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
Invoke the agent-skills:shipping-and-launch skill.
/ship is a fan-out orchestrator. It runs three specialist personas in parallel against the current change, then merges their reports into a single go/no-go decision with a rollback plan. The personas operate independently — no shared state, no ordering — which is what makes parallel execution safe and useful here.
Phase A — Parallel fan-out
Spawn three subagents concurrently using the Agent tool. Issue all three Agent tool calls in a single assistant turn so they execute in parallel — sequential calls defeat the purpose of this command.
In Claude Code, each call passes subagent_type matching the persona's name field:
code-reviewer— Run a five-axis review (correctness, readability, architecture, security, performance) on the staged changes or recent commits. Output the standard review template.security-auditor— Run a vulnerability and threat-model pass. Check OWASP Top 10, secrets handling, auth/authz, dependency CVEs. Output the standard audit report.test-engineer— Analyze test coverage for the change. Identify gaps in happy path, edge cases, error paths, and concurrency scenarios. Output the standard coverage analysis.
In other harnesses without an Agent tool, invoke each persona's system prompt sequentially and treat their outputs as if returned in parallel — the merge phase still works.
Constraints (from Claude Code's subagent model):
- Subagents cannot spawn other subagents — do not let one persona delegate to another.
- Each subagent gets its own context window and returns only its report to this main session.
- If you need teammates that talk to each other instead of just reporting back, use Claude Code Agent Teams and reference these personas as teammate types (see
references/orchestration-patterns.md).
Persona resolution. If you've defined your own code-reviewer, security-auditor, or test-engineer in .claude/agents/ or ~/.claude/agents/, those take precedence over this plugin's versions — /ship picks up your customizations automatically. This is intentional: plugin subagents sit at the bottom of Claude Code's scope priority table, so user-level definitions win by design.
Phase B — Merge in main context
Once all three reports are back, the main agent (not a sub-persona) synthesizes them:
- Code Quality — Aggregate Critical/Important findings from
code-reviewerand any failing tests, lint, or build output. Resolve duplicates between reviewers. - Security — Promote any Critical/High
security-auditorfindings to launch blockers. Cross-reference withcode-reviewer's security axis. - Performance — Pull from
code-reviewer's performance axis; cross-check Core Web Vitals if applicable. - Accessibility — Verify keyboard nav, screen reader support, contrast (not covered by the three personas — handle directly here, or invoke the accessibility checklist).
- Infrastructure — Env vars, migrations, monitoring, feature flags. Verify directly.
- Documentation — README, ADRs, changelog. Verify directly.
Phase C — Decision and rollback
Produce a single output:
## Ship Decision: GO | NO-GO
### Blockers (must fix before ship)
- [Source persona: Critical finding + file:line]
### Recommended fixes (should fix before ship)
- [Source persona: Important finding + file:line]
### Acknowledged risks (shipping anyway)
- [Risk + mitigation]
### Rollback plan
- Trigger conditions: [what signals would prompt rollback]
- Rollback procedure: [exact steps]
- Recovery time objective: [target]
### Specialist reports (full)
- [code-reviewer report]
- [security-auditor report]
- [test-engineer report]Rules
- The three Phase A personas run in parallel — never sequentially.
- Personas do not call each other. The main agent merges in Phase B.
- The rollback plan is mandatory before any GO decision.
- If any persona returns a Critical finding, the default verdict is NO-GO unless the user explicitly accepts the risk.
- Skip the fan-out only if all of the following are true: the change touches 2 files or fewer, the diff is under 50 lines, and it does not touch auth, payments, data access, or config/env. Otherwise, default to fan-out.
/shipis designed for production-bound changes — when the blast radius is non-trivial, run the parallel review even if the diff looks small.
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.

