agentleFS
stardustaistardustai/stardust-skills/skills/startask-io-contract-audit/SKILL.md

startask-io-contract-audit

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a Startask/Stardust import, prelabel, export, return-flow, or delivery task has an unfrozen customer contract, conflicting specifications/samples/operator trees/platform records/adapter code/validators, mapping/coordinate/timeline/identity/point-order/lineage disagreement, or a delivery-readiness question. Do not use for routine implementation under a confirmed contract or unrelated file conversion.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not claim platform or customer success from local validation.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Read references/verification-gates.md before stating the first readiness conclusion.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Ask at most three implementation-changing questions.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Verify G0 through G6 consecutively using references/verification-gates.md.

    line 22
  5. Distinctive:

    Stop formal implementation and explain the blocker when any of these applies:

    line 26
  6. Distinctive:

    If unavailable, use repository documents, code, samples, and validators.

    line 50
  7. Distinctive:

    After implementation, return here to re-audit affected rows and gates.

    line 51
  8. Very specific:

    Read references/contract-matrix.md for evidence, rows, and the Implementation scope card.

    line 55
  9. Very specific:

    Read references/conflict-and-authority.md for CONFLICT, MISSING, or disagreeing artifacts.

    line 56
  10. Distinctive:

    Read references/verification-gates.md before the first readiness conclusion, then re-read it after scope freeze and before every completion …

    line 57
  11. Distinctive:

    Read references/case-index-and-evals.md only to maintain or validate this Skill.

    line 58

≈ “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

Startask I/O Contract Audit

Core rules

  • Audit before implementation when the contract is unfrozen or evidence conflicts; code is evidence, not business authority.
  • Mark material rows CONFIRMED, INFERRED, CONFLICT, or MISSING; never hide unknowns with defaults or fallbacks.
  • Do not claim platform or customer success from local validation; redact sensitive customer data and locators.

Audit workflow

  1. Read references/verification-gates.md before stating the first readiness conclusion. Then classify import, prelabel, export, return flow, or acceptance; record data type, mutation, entrypoints, authorization, and planned gate.
  2. Inventory six evidence classes—specification, real sample, operator/schema, accepted platform record, adapter code, and validator or accepted output.
  3. Compile material rows using references/contract-matrix.md.
  4. Give each conflict row exactly one primary layer; split cross-layer issues into linked rows, then select field-specific authority without global precedence.
  5. Ask at most three implementation-changing questions; use references/conflict-and-authority.md.
  6. Freeze approved decisions by completing the Implementation scope card in references/contract-matrix.md, then route to an optional Playbook when applicable.
  7. Verify G0 through G6 consecutively using references/verification-gates.md; report current-turn evidence only.

Stop conditions

Stop formal implementation and explain the blocker when any of these applies:

  • Critical authority evidence that determines business output, remote state, or the requested claim is missing, stale, or conflicting.
  • A critical business mapping or missing-value policy remains unresolved.
  • A proposed remote mutation is outside the user's authorization or the frozen remote-I/O boundary.
  • The requested readiness or delivery claim exceeds the current evidence and verification gate.

For non-critical missing or stale evidence, continue with an INFERRED row, record its basis and limitation, and do not promote it to CONFIRMED. While a critical blocker remains, continue only safe read-only checks that do not assume the unresolved decision.

Standard output

Lead with the conclusion and readiness, then provide:

  1. Task/authorization boundary, evidence manifest, and material matrix.
  2. Conflict register, authority, and required decisions.
  3. Completed Implementation scope card, implementation path or stop reason.
  4. highest_passed_gate, higher not_verified, evidence, blockers, and next step.

Select exactly one readiness value from the readiness decision table in references/verification-gates.md. If a required check has failed or any critical blocker remains, BLOCKED takes precedence regardless of the highest passed gate.

Route implementation

  • For import, prelabel, attachment, preprocessedData, or operator/annotation assembly, optionally route to startask-import-playbook if available.
  • For export, frame splitting, platform semantics, or lineage parsing, optionally route to startask-export-playbook if available.
  • If unavailable, use repository documents, code, samples, and validators; do not block on personal Skill availability.
  • After implementation, return here to re-audit affected rows and gates.

Read references

  • Read references/contract-matrix.md for evidence, rows, and the Implementation scope card.
  • Read references/conflict-and-authority.md for CONFLICT, MISSING, or disagreeing artifacts.
  • Read references/verification-gates.md before the first readiness conclusion, then re-read it after scope freeze and before every completion or delivery claim.
  • Read references/case-index-and-evals.md only to maintain or validate this Skill.

Maintain and test this Skill

Exercise the positive and negative cases in references/case-index-and-evals.md after changes. Keep frontmatter triggers-only and regenerate changed UI metadata.

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.