autonomous-delivery-pipeline
Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when the user wants end-to-end autonomous execution from a brief idea to working, verified code -- multi-phase work spanning requirements, planning, implementation, QA, and validation. Not for brainstorming, single focused changes, or quick fixes.
In this repository116 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/graphify/references/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-config-security-auditSkill
- agent-harness-designSkill
- agent-readable-docsSkill
- agent-runtime-patternsSkill
- agent-session-forensicsSkill
- ai-regression-testingSkill
- ai-slop-cleanerSkill
- api-doc-reviewSkill
- architecture-decision-recordsSkill
- architecture-simplificationSkill
- ask-claudeSkill
- ask-codexSkill
- ask-geminiSkill
- baseline-comparison-reviewSkill
- bigquery-cost-auditSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- browser-automation-safetySkill
- bug-huntSkill
- build-fix-minimal-diffSkill
- canonical-advisor-routingSkill
- change-impact-checkSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- ci-failure-readoutSkill
- codebase-migration-batchesSkill
- context-compressionSkill
- context-docsSkill
- context-minimizationSkill
- context-retrieval-loopSkill
- data-qualitySkill
- dataset-split-reviewSkill
- dbt-incremental-strategy-auditSkill
- dbt-preflightSkill
- dbt-strategySkill
- dead-code-removalSkill
- defuddleSkill
- dependency-cleanupSkill
- deploy-pipeline-runbookSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- doc-consistency-checkSkill
- environment-doctorSkill
- experiment-tracking-reviewSkill
- failure-triageSkill
- filesystem-mcp-guardrailsSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- flaky-test-investigationSkill
- gh-address-commentsSkill
- github-ci-failure-triageSkill
- graphifySkill
- handoff-disciplineSkill
- hard-won-skill-extractorSkill
- hook-safety-reviewSkill
- incident-readoutSkill
- incremental-migrationSkill
- json-canvasSkill
- local-rag-mcpSkill
- log-driven-diagnosisSkill
- managed-codebase-contextSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 49
Phase 1 - Planning: Create an implementation plan from the spec
- Distinctive: line 55
Run independent tasks in parallel
- Distinctive: line 60
Stop early if the same error repeats 3 times (indicates a fundamental issue)
- Distinctive: line 66
All must approve; fix and re-validate on rejection
- Distinctive: line 68
Phase 5 - Cleanup: Remove intermediate plan artifacts on successful completion
- Distinctive: line 79
Stop and report when the same QA error persists across 3 cycles (fundamental issue requiring human input)
- Distinctive: line 80
Stop and report when validation keeps failing after 3 re-validation rounds
- Distinctive: line 81
Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort"
- Distinctive: line 82
If requirements were too vague and expansion produces an unclear spec, offer redirect to requirements clarifier
≈ “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
Autonomous Delivery Pipeline takes a brief product idea and autonomously handles the full lifecycle: requirements analysis, technical design, planning, parallel implementation, QA cycling, and multi-perspective validation. It produces working, verified code from a 2-3 line description.
This skill creates an execution plan and verification loop for a coding agent. It does not grant permission to write globally, install dependencies, commit, push, deploy, or modify secrets.
When to Use
- User wants end-to-end autonomous execution from an idea to working code
- Task requires multiple phases: planning, coding, testing, and validation
Do Not Use When
- User wants to explore options or brainstorm -- respond conversationally
- User wants a single focused code change -- use a persistent completion loop or delegate directly
- Task is a quick fix or small bug -- use direct executor delegation
Why This Exists
Most non-trivial software tasks require coordinated phases: understanding requirements, designing a solution, implementing in parallel, testing, and validating quality. Autonomous delivery orchestrates all of these phases automatically so the user can describe what they want and receive working code without managing each step.
Inputs
- A brief product idea or task description (2-3 lines is enough)
- Optional: a pre-validated requirements-clarifier spec (
.specs/requirements-clarifier-*.md); if present, Phase 0 expansion is skipped
Execution Policy
- Each phase must complete before the next begins
- Parallel execution is used within phases where possible (Phase 2 and Phase 4)
- QA cycles repeat up to 5 times; if the same error persists 3 times, stop and report the fundamental issue
- Validation requires approval from all reviewers; rejected items get fixed and re-validated
- Dry-run and default-safe behaviors apply. Review before use.
Workflow
- Phase 0 - Expansion: Turn the user's idea into a detailed spec
- If requirements clarifier spec exists: Skip expansion, use the pre-validated spec directly. Continue to Phase 1 (Planning).
- If input is vague (no file paths, function names, or concrete anchors): Offer redirect to requirements clarifier for Socratic clarification
- Otherwise: Extract requirements and create technical specification
- Output: a written specification document
- Phase 1 - Planning: Create an implementation plan from the spec
- Create plan
- Validate plan
- Output: a written implementation plan
- Phase 2 - Execution: Implement the plan
- Run independent tasks in parallel
- Phase 3 - QA: Cycle until all tests pass
- Build, lint, test, fix failures
- Repeat up to 5 cycles
- Stop early if the same error repeats 3 times (indicates a fundamental issue)
- Phase 4 - Validation: Multi-perspective review in parallel
- Architecture: Functional completeness
- Security: Vulnerability check
- Code quality: Review
- All must approve; fix and re-validate on rejection
- Phase 5 - Cleanup: Remove intermediate plan artifacts on successful completion
Output
- A written specification document (Phase 0)
- A written implementation plan (Phase 1)
- Working code with passing tests and build, approved by architecture, security, and code-quality review
- Intermediate plan artifacts removed on successful completion
Failure Modes
- Stop and report when the same QA error persists across 3 cycles (fundamental issue requiring human input)
- Stop and report when validation keeps failing after 3 re-validation rounds
- Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort"
- If requirements were too vague and expansion produces an unclear spec, offer redirect to requirements clarifier
Verification
- All 5 phases completed (Expansion, Planning, Execution, QA, Validation)
- All validators approved in Phase 4
- Tests pass (verified with fresh test run output)
- Build succeeds (verified with fresh build output)
- State files cleaned up
- User informed of completion with summary of what was built
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.

