agentleFS
tethertotetherto/qvac/.agents/skills/qv-qip-triage/SKILL.md

qv-qip-triage

Skill697 starsChanged 18 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use during planning, implementation, PR review, or /qv-qip-triage when a change may affect public SDK API, native dependency, plugin contract, model registry contract, runtime, transport, storage, release flow, deployment, security, NFR, or technical principles.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    If no trigger clearly fires, say so briefly and continue normally

    line 35
  2. Distinctive:

    If a trigger clearly fires:

    line 36
  3. Very specific:

    Ask whether to hand off to qv-qip-create

    line 44
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not start drafting unless the user confirms

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Read the trigger reference once per session

    line 75
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not re-run the full checklist on every tiny follow-up edit unless scope changed materially

    line 76

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

QIP Triage

Conservatively decide whether a change needs a QIP before deeper implementation or merge recommendation.

When to use this skill

Use when:

  • Planning or implementing a change that may affect technical direction
  • Reviewing a PR or diff for cross-package, contract, delivery, or principle impact
  • Another workflow asks whether a proposal is needed first
  • User invokes /qv-qip-triage

Do NOT use for:

  • Drafting the QIP itself (use qv-qip-create)
  • Reviewing an existing QIP draft (use qv-qip-review)

Core stance

  • Bias toward not interrupting the team
  • Better to miss borderline proposal candidates than to ask for a QIP on every small PR
  • This is advisory only. Never block mechanically or claim work cannot proceed

Workflow

  1. Read references/significance-triggers.md
  2. Inspect the requested change, planned work, or diff
  3. Apply the checklist with a high-confidence bar only
  4. If no trigger clearly fires, say so briefly and continue normally
  5. If a trigger clearly fires:
    • Name the trigger and why in one or two sentences
    • List the exact points that need a QIP, not the whole requested change
    • Separate implementation details that do not need a QIP on their own
    • Recommend how many QIPs are needed:
      • One QIP when the points are one decision with a shared consequence set
      • Multiple QIPs when points can be approved, rejected, or shipped independently
    • Name each proposed QIP scope in plain language
    • Ask whether to hand off to qv-qip-create
    • Do not start drafting unless the user confirms

Output format

When no trigger fires:

No architectural significance trigger clearly applies. Proceed with normal team review.

When a trigger fires:

Trigger: <trigger name>
Why: <one or two sentences>

QIP-worthy points:
- <exact point that needs proposal review>

Not QIP-worthy on its own:
- <implementation detail or ordinary work>

Proposal count:
<One QIP: <scope name> / Multiple QIPs: <scope names and why split>>

This looks technically significant because it changes <trigger>. I recommend drafting the proposal(s) above before going deeper, so the affected people can review the direction early. Want me to start a QIP draft from what we know?

Efficiency rules

  • Read the trigger reference once per session
  • Do not re-run the full checklist on every tiny follow-up edit unless scope changed materially
  • Cap shell calls at 0-2 unless inspecting a PR diff requires gh pr diff

Additional resources

  • Trigger reference: references/significance-triggers.md

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.