agentleFS
selamy-labsselamy-labs/agent-skills/skills/continuous-issue-resolution/SKILL.md

continuous-issue-resolution

Skill0 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when an agent should continuously resolve an authorized backlog through bounded implementation, tested PRs, independent review, and evidence-backed closure. GitHub Issues may hold the queue; an existing authoritative backlog works too.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Before claiming work, inspect existing branches and PRs.

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Run the required local checks and meaningful acceptance tests.

    line 47
  3. Distinctive:

    When the queue backs up, finish or unblock existing work before admitting more.

    line 68
  4. Distinctive:

    Read exact-artifact qualification from the system of record.

    line 88
  5. Distinctive:

    Use [[ephemeral-workspace-lifecycle]] to remove a clean disposable workspace or record its retained path, owner, reason, dirty state, and …

    line 103
  6. Distinctive:

    Use repository-required post-merge qualification.

    line 116

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Continuous Issue Resolution

Drain the user's current authorized backlog. Use GitHub Issues when they are the repository's source of truth; otherwise use its existing task list, spec, or work queue. Do not require issue creation or a second ledger to start work. Refresh priorities, existing PRs, active owners, and blockers before selecting the next item. A historical report is context, not current queue state.

Ready Contract

Take a bounded item with a clear outcome, current acceptance criteria, an authorized target branch, and a meaningful validation path. Honor the queue's existing readiness and ownership signals. If its scope is ambiguous or outside the user's authority, record the missing decision and continue other independent authorized work. Keep completion criteria, dependencies, and evidence in the existing item or PR; avoid a second planning layer.

For routine, reversible choices within standing user authorization, use an existing valid route and proceed. An unavailable preferred route does not itself require parent approval for another authorized route. Preserve explicit holds, required human gates, and decisions that actually need new authority.

Before claiming work, inspect existing branches and PRs. An open PR for the same outcome belongs in review or repair, not in a second implementation lane. Adopt the exact existing PR when authorized and its source is sound: inspect its current head, diff, authorship, acceptance evidence, and remaining work. Preserve honest attribution. Branch-name preferences alone do not justify closing and recreating it. Use [[verify-delegated-work]] before accepting it.

Bounded Workers And A Dedicated Shepherd

For parallel work, keep one writer per concern in isolated workspaces. Assign one shepherd to own PR review coordination, CI failures, conflicts, qualified merges, and post-merge follow-through. Existing user authorization and explicit holds govern that role; assigning it grants no extra merge or deploy authority.

Workers repeat this loop while authorized backlog remains:

  1. Claim one ready item using the existing ownership mechanism. Confirm the claim and its file/interface scope before editing; do not race another owner.
  2. Implement the smallest coherent, independently reviewable change.
  3. Run the required local checks and meaningful acceptance tests.
  4. Open or update the PR with its exact head, evidence, and remaining gaps; hand it to the shepherd and release the implementation claim.
  5. Select the next disjoint ready item within the work-in-progress limit.

Allocation is not execution. Once the claim and workspace are ready, deliver the bound item, workspace/branch, acceptance criteria, and validation path to the assigned worker once through the existing channel. Confirm task-specific work has started; an allocation receipt or queued message alone does not prove startup. If the worker remains idle, inspect delivery and its actual state, then resume that worker without creating an overlapping replacement. Use [[yield-on-wait]] when startup remains pending after bounded observation.

An implementation handoff is not merged, deployed, or accepted completion. The shepherd retains delivery ownership while workers continue useful work. CI or review waiting on one PR must not become a controller-wide wait for unrelated workers. Dependent work may be stacked when repository policy permits; preserve one writer per concern and refresh affected evidence after changes.

Set work-in-progress limits from actual implementation capacity, review and CI service rates, conflict frequency, and main health. Count waiting PRs as WIP. When the queue backs up, finish or unblock existing work before admitting more; do not choose a large PR count as a throughput target. Reserve capacity to repair main when unhealthy, and obey any repository-wide stop-the-line policy.

Triage And Decomposition

Implement now when one clear outcome fits one reviewable PR. Split only when there are separable outcomes, excessive risk, or a validation boundary too broad for one change. Give each slice acceptance criteria, dependencies, ownership, and a validation expectation in the existing backlog. Create child issues only when that is the queue's convention. Avoid tiny PRs that merely move incomplete behavior across files or increase integration work.

Acceptance And Verification

Anchor acceptance tests to the current governing spec, user requirement, or observed bug. A test that restates the new implementation can preserve the wrong behavior. Exercise the real boundary the claim depends on, including positive controls and failure recovery when relevant.

Read exact-artifact qualification from the system of record. Reuse valid evidence only when repository policy permits and source, tools, configuration, inputs, and environment still match; rerun affected or time-sensitive checks when they do not. Keep required CI intact. Do not skip, weaken, or relabel failing checks to improve apparent throughput. A green PR alone does not prove the combined tree, main health, deployed behavior, or the user's full journey.

Blockers

Record the exact blocker, observed evidence, legitimate next action, and owner on the existing item or PR. Distinguish ordinary CI/review waiting from a real permission, credential, or external decision blocker. Do not repeat an unchanged failing action; repair its cause or move to independent ready work. Release or hand off the claim using the existing convention.

Use [[ephemeral-workspace-lifecycle]] to remove a clean disposable workspace or record its retained path, owner, reason, dirty state, and review deadline.

Closure

Close a backlog item only after its acceptance criteria are verified. Record:

  • exact PR and merge state, head and resulting main commit;
  • authoritative checks and meaningful behavior evidence;
  • deployed or produced artifact verification when the item requires it;
  • remaining gaps, next owner, and continuation for pending verification;
  • workspace disposition: removed, or retained with owner, reason, and expiry.

Use repository-required post-merge qualification. Auto-merge requests, queued merges, and checkpoints are intermediate states. Keep delivery ownership until the required outcome is verified, while independent authorized work continues.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.