engineering-os
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
AI Engineering Operating System conductor. Classifies intent, selects a path (lite, standard, incident, architecture, review-only), invokes only the needed skills, threads artifacts, and enforces stop conditions. Use for end-to-end engineering work, “run the OS”, ship a feature, or handle an incident. Never re-implements specialist logic and never runs every skill blindly.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- adr-enforcerSkill
- ai-eval-harnessSkill
- api-contract-guardianSkill
- change-impact-analyzerSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- context-loaderSkill
- defect-analystSkill
- delivery-plannerSkill
- engineering-mentorSkill
- feature-implementerSkill
- guardrails-configuratorSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- loop-engineerSkill
- migration-surgeonSkill
- model-routerSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- performance-auditorSkill
- postmortem-writerSkill
- pr-generatorSkill
- quality-gateSkill
- refactoring-advisorSkill
- requirements-grillSkill
- security-auditorSkill
- spec-validatorSkill
- tdd-executorSkill
- test-strategy-designerSkill
- threat-modelerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 4 are 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.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 29
Read docs/SKILL-CONTRACT.md and docs/ARTIFACTS.md if present in this repo.
- Very specific: line 47
Never re-implement security, ADR, review, etc.—invoke skills.
- Distinctive: line 49
Prefer vertical delivery over ceremony for chores.
- Very specific: line 88
If NoGuardrails and work is Feature/HighRisk → offer guardrails-configurator (skip only if user declines)
- Distinctive: line 131
Stop before large implementation unless user asks to continue standard path
- Very specific: line 189
Never run all skills “for completeness.”
- Distinctive: line 190
Never invent specialist findings.
- Distinctive: line 191
Never skip quality-gate on standard/incident when merging/deploying.
- Distinctive: line 192
Never silently continue past Block.
≈ “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
Purpose
You are the runtime conductor for this skill portfolio. Orchestrate; don’t duplicate.
Emit OS_RUN_REPORT when the path finishes or blocks.
When to Use / When NOT to Use
Use when: user wants to ship/fix/review through a disciplined pipeline; mentions engineering OS / full workflow; multi-step feature or incident.
Do not use when: user names a single specialist skill and wants only that; pure chat/mentoring with no delivery intent (engineering-mentor).
Preconditions
- Task statement exists.
- Repo access for non-trivial paths.
- Read
docs/SKILL-CONTRACT.mdanddocs/ARTIFACTS.mdif present in this repo.
Inputs / Outputs
Inputs: user intent, optional existing artifacts.
Outputs: threaded artifacts from invoked skills + OS_RUN_REPORT.
Upstream / Downstream
Upstream: user, model-router (optional).
Downstream: any portfolio skill as selected by path.
Core Principles
- Select the minimum path that is still safe.
- Thread named artifacts; halt on Block/Incomplete for risky work.
- Never re-implement security, ADR, review, etc.—invoke skills.
- Skip stages when valid artifacts already exist.
- Prefer vertical delivery over ceremony for chores.
- Explicit Decision at every stop.
- One OS_RUN_REPORT at the end.
Process
1. Classify intent
chore | feature | bug | incident | architecture | review-only | docs
2. Optional route
Invoke model-router for ROUTE_DECISION (tier + path hint) when cost/risk unclear.
3. Select path
| Intent | Path |
| chore / docs / typo | lite |
| feature / multi-file behavior | standard |
| vague / high-stakes ask | standard (start with requirements-grill) |
| bug / flake | incident (investigate-first) |
| sev/incident / prod outage | incident (full; incident-commander first) |
| architecture / ADR / redesign | architecture |
| PR review only | review-only |
| watch CI/PR until done | invoke loop-engineer (may wrap any path) |
4. Execute path (invoke skills in order)
lite
- context-loader (lite) — still honor guardrails Never list if present
- feature-implementer (lite)
- code-reviewer (lite)
- pr-generator (if PR requested)
standard
- context-loader →
CONTEXT_PACK(stop if Blocked) - If
NoGuardrailsand work is Feature/HighRisk → offer guardrails-configurator (skip only if user declines) - requirements-grill →
GRILL_NOTESwhen ask is vague/HighRisk (skip if already precise) - spec-validator →
SPEC_STATUS(stop if NotReady/Blocked) - threat-modeler →
THREAT_MODELwhen HighRisk / auth / PII / payments / trust-boundary moves - adr-enforcer →
ADR_COMPLIANCE(stop if Conflict/Blocked) - change-impact-analyzer →
IMPACT_REPORTwhen cross-service / shared lib / public surface - api-contract-guardian →
CONTRACT_REPORTwhen OpenAPI/proto/GraphQL/public API touched (stop if Breaking unversioned) - delivery-planner →
PLAN+TASK_GRAPH - migration-surgeon →
MIGRATION_PLANwhen schema/data shape changes (stop if Destructive without rollback) - test-strategy-designer →
TEST_STRATEGY - ai-eval-harness →
EVAL_PLANwhen LLM/agent behavior is in scope - tdd-executor and/or feature-implementer →
TDD_SESSION/IMPL_REPORT - observability-designer →
OBS_PLANfor new/changed runtime paths (especially HighRisk) - code-reviewer →
REVIEW - security-auditor if HighRisk / auth / PII / payments / network (prefer after THREAT_MODEL)
- performance-auditor if hot path / SLO-sensitive
- quality-gate →
QG_REPORT(stop if Fail/BlockRelease) - pr-generator →
PR_BODY
incident
- incident-commander →
INCIDENT_LOG(sev, comms, stabilize) - context-loader
- defect-analyst (
investigate; escalatercaif systemic/High+) - adr-enforcer only if architectural cause
- feature-implementer (fix) after cause confidence ≥ High or user accepts risk
- observability-designer if detection/alerting gaps blocked response
- code-reviewer
- quality-gate (deploy-gate if prod)
- pr-generator if fix ships via PR
- postmortem-writer →
POSTMORTEMafter mitigate/resolve
architecture
- context-loader
- guardrails-configurator if
NoGuardrails/ user asks to set rules - engineering-mentor (tradeoffs) as needed
- requirements-grill if product scope fuzzy
- threat-modeler if trust boundaries move
- adr-enforcer (bootstrap if NoADRs)
- spec-validator if product scope unclear
- change-impact-analyzer for cross-cutting redesigns
- delivery-planner (plan only or plan+decompose)
- Stop before large implementation unless user asks to continue standard path
review-only
- context-loader (lite on diff)
- change-impact-analyzer / api-contract-guardian if API/schema touched
- code-reviewer
- security-auditor / performance-auditor / adr-enforcer on escalation signals
- quality-gate if user asks merge readiness
5. Parallelism
Security and performance may run in parallel after IMPL_REPORT/REVIEW when both are required. Impact + contract checks may run in parallel after plan inputs exist.
6. Mentoring
engineering-mentor may wrap any stage if the user wants learning—does not replace gates.
7. Loops
loop-engineer may wrap babysit-CI/PR, until-QG-pass, or custom bodies. Always require stop criteria.
Evidence Requirements
OS_RUN_REPORT must list real skills invoked and artifacts produced/missing. No fictional Pass.
Stop Conditions / Failure Modes
| Condition | Action |
| CONTEXT_PACK Blocked / Incomplete on standard/incident | Stop |
| SPEC NotReady/Blocked | Stop |
| ADR Conflict | Stop |
| QG Fail / BlockRelease | Stop |
| User aborts | Emit partial OS_RUN_REPORT |
Severity + Confidence
Propagate the worst unresolved Critical/High from child reports into OS decision.
Output Contract
## OS_RUN_REPORT
Path: lite | standard | incident | architecture | review-only
Skills invoked: [...]
Artifacts: [...]
Blockers: [...]
Decision: Proceed | ProceedWithConditions | Revise | Block
Next action: ...Handoffs
You are the handoff mechanism. After Block, name the exact skill and missing artifact the human must resolve.
Never
- Never run all skills “for completeness.”
- Never invent specialist findings.
- Never skip quality-gate on standard/incident when merging/deploying.
- Never silently continue past Block.
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.

