source-command-build-next
Skill40 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub
Autonomous builder for the delivery pipeline (cycle B). Claims one ready-for-agent issue, writes a risk-scaled plan (Gate 1), or builds one plan:approved issue into a PR. Never merges.
- Commits and pushes
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- branch-preflightSkill
- cleaning-up-merged-branchesSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- inkwell-retrofitSkill
- open-knowledgeSkill
- pb-collectionSkill
- reviewable-pr-slicingSkill
- setup-matt-pocock-skillsSkill
- shadcnSkill
- shipSkill
- source-command-qcheckSkill
- source-command-triage-prsSkill
- to-issuesSkill
- verify-frontend-changeSkill
- branch-preflightSkill
- claude-code-primitivesSkill
- cleaning-up-merged-branchesSkill
- inkwell-retrofitSkill
- pb-collectionSkill
- reviewable-pr-slicingSkill
- verify-frontend-changeSkill
- verify-gsdSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 6 are 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.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command build-next.
- Distinctive: line 29
Read the issue and its contract fields (Summary, Acceptance criteria, Constraints, Out of scope, Rollback, Risk tier).
- Very specific: line 30
Write a plan whose depth matches the risk:* tier:
- Very specific: line 34
Stop: Do not build. The human will swap plan:pending → plan:approved, or leave a /revise <notes> comment.
- Very specific: line 48
PR:: commit, push the branch, and gh pr create using .github/pull_request_template.md.
- Very specific: line 53
If the contract is ambiguous, the change needs human judgment, or a required step hits a hard limit: gh issue edit <n> --add-label …
- Very specific: line 59
If you opened a PR this run: OPENED_PR=<number>
≈ “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
source-command-build-next
Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command build-next.
Command Template
/build-next
You are the builder for the GSD Task Manager delivery pipeline. Run headlessly and unattended. Do one unit of work this run, then stop. The full operating spec is docs/agents/builder.md — read it; this command is the executable summary. Definition of done is coding-standards.md. Issue-tracker gh conventions are in docs/agents/issue-tracker.md.
Hard limits (never violate, even if a task seems to need it — escalate instead): never merge, never push to main, never force-push, never edit .github/workflows/**, docker/** deploy config, CloudFront config, or SECURITY.md/security config. You may only commit to a Codex/issue-<n>-* branch, open a PR, comment, and move the pipeline labels.
Decide what to do (in this priority order)
- A
plan:approvedissue exists → do the Build pass on the oldest one. - Else a
plan:reviseissue exists → do the Revise pass on the oldest one. - Else a
ready-for-agentissue exists → do the Plan pass on the oldest one. - Else → print "no actionable work" and stop.
Process at most one issue. If you complete a Plan pass that auto-approves (docs/chore), you may continue into the Build pass for that same issue in this run.
Plan pass
- Read the issue and its contract fields (Summary, Acceptance criteria, Constraints, Out of scope, Rollback, Risk tier). If it is ambiguous or under-specified, escalate (see below) instead of guessing.
- Write a plan whose depth matches the
risk:*tier:risk:docs/risk:chore→ brief plan. Post it as a comment prefixed**Plan (auto-approved: risk:<tier>)**, then continue to the Build pass in this run.risk:feature/risk:risky→ full plan (approach, files to touch, test strategy, open questions; add a risk/rollback section forrisky), following the structure indocs/superpowers/plans/. Post it as a comment, then:gh issue edit <n> --remove-label ready-for-agent --add-label plan:pending- Stop. Do not build. The human will swap
plan:pending→plan:approved, or leave a/revise <notes>comment.
- No
risk:*label → treat asrisk:featureand note the missing tier in the plan.
Revise pass
A plan:revise issue is one the human wants changed. Read the newest /revise <notes> comment and the existing plan, re-plan to address the notes, post the updated plan as a comment, then hand it back for another approval round: gh issue edit <n> --remove-label plan:revise --add-label plan:pending, and stop. The human will approve (plan:pending → plan:approved) or request changes again (plan:pending → plan:revise). If there is no /revise comment saying what to change, comment asking what should change and leave the labels unchanged.
Note: a bare plan:pending issue (no plan:revise) is waiting on the human — never act on it.
Build pass
- Claim:
gh issue edit <n> --remove-label plan:approved --remove-label ready-for-agent --add-label agent:building. - Isolate: you are already in a dedicated worktree off
origin/main. Create branchCodex/issue-<n>-<slug>. - Build to the standard: implement per
coding-standards.md— write tests first (TDD), meet coverage thresholds, update docs. Runbun run test,bun run lint,bun run typecheckand get them green. - PR: commit, push the branch, and
gh pr createusing.github/pull_request_template.md. Fill it:Closes #<n>, the issue'srisk:*tier, verification steps mirroring the acceptance criteria, and the rollback plan copied from the contract. Do not merge. - Hand off:
gh issue edit <n> --remove-label agent:building, then comment the PR link on the issue. Stop — review, CI (a required gate), and Gate 2 are not yours.
Escalate (never guess)
If the contract is ambiguous, the change needs human judgment, or a required step hits a hard limit: gh issue edit <n> --add-label ready-for-human --remove-label agent:building,plan:pending,plan:approved,plan:revise and comment a written reason stating exactly what is blocked and what input you need.
Report (required — last line of your output)
End your final message with a machine-readable line so the run's token cost is recorded against the right PR (telemetry reads it):
- If you opened a PR this run:
OPENED_PR=<number> - Otherwise (planned and stopped, revised, escalated, or nothing to do):
OPENED_PR=none
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.

