define-done
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Define acceptance criteria, risk level, and verification before editing. Use at the start of non-trivial implementation or when an issue lacks clear proof of completion.
3 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- opascope/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- wakqasahmed/skillsedited, first seen Aug 12, 2026
- walidboulanouar/define-donetheir own version, first seen Jun 4, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- wakqasahmed/skills★ 299% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- walidboulanouar/define-done★ 9same name
- opascope/skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ai-agent-pr-metadataSkill
- changesets-releaseSkill
- clarify-workSkill
- decompose-to-issuesSkill
- design-composition-checkSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- docker-db-guardrailsSkill
- docker-volume-guardrailsSkill
- external-campaign-triageSkill
- external-pr-styleSkill
- external-pr-viabilitySkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- git-identity-guardSkill
- hitl-blockerSkill
- open-code-review-setupSkill
- release-gateSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- review-gateSkill
- subagent-pipelineSkill
- tmux-orphaned-socketSkill
- to-prdSkill
- vps-cleanupSkill
- wizardSkill
- workflow-routerSkill
- write-prompt-guideSkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
- cavemanSkill
- handoverSkill
- roastSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this before changing code or docs on non-trivial work.
- Distinctive: line 13
Write testable acceptance criteria.
- Very specific: line 26
Follow system-level/core.md (Test Database Safety) for what counts as disposable/dedicated storage and when a staging backup is required.
- Distinctive: line 34
Write a test for at least one failure path (timeout, provider error, partial write), not only the happy path.
- Distinctive: line 35
Verify state transitions are correct under retry: a record re-attempted after a partial failure must not silently double-count, skip, or …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Define Done
Use this before changing code or docs on non-trivial work.
Workflow
- Classify risk: low, medium, or high.
- Write testable acceptance criteria.
- Name the minimum verification commands or manual checks.
- Record known constraints and non-goals.
- State rollback or recovery notes for medium/high-risk changes.
Risk Rules
- Low: narrow copy, style, test-only, or isolated bug fix (with no business-rule change).
- Medium: user-visible behavior, business logic, data handling, CI, integrations, or multi-file behavior.
- High: auth, payments, permissions, secrets, migrations, deployment, infrastructure, tenant data, or irreversible operations.
Test Database Requirement
Follow system-level/core.md (Test Database Safety) for what counts as disposable/dedicated storage and when a staging backup is required. Verification commands named in step 3 of the workflow above must satisfy that rule before this skill is considered done.
Async/Stateful Contract Requirement
For medium/high-risk work that involves queue jobs, background workers, retries, or any record that tracks attempt/state transitions:
- State the retry limit and what happens on exhaustion (fail loudly, dead-letter, alert) — don't leave it implicit.
- Confirm the job or handler is idempotent on retry, or explicitly justify why it doesn't need to be.
- Write a test for at least one failure path (timeout, provider error, partial write), not only the happy path.
- Verify state transitions are correct under retry: a record re-attempted after a partial failure must not silently double-count, skip, or corrupt its tracked state.
Done Means
- Acceptance criteria satisfied.
- Relevant checks run and named.
- Tests added/updated, or a reason is recorded.
- Independent review completed for non-trivial work.
- Rollout/rollback notes present when risk warrants them.
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.

