context-handoff
Skill2 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub
At phase delivery, context recovery or takeover of a named earlier session, save checkpoints, verify results and execution liveness, continue approved work, and refresh the human-facing workbench. Ordinary Q&A creates no status file; this does not replace plan writing or history archiving.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
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 22
No history tool -> recover from on-disk evidence.
- Distinctive: line 23
No write permission or final state -> pause only the conflicting writes.
- Distinctive: line 24
No usage figures -> write unknown, keep the accumulated total.
- Distinctive: line 25
No project or object -> add the minimal locating information.
- Distinctive: line 48
When another agent must act, follow the project's collaboration contract: put the handover entry in plan status and give the user only its …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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
Checkpoints and context continuation
Let the successor find the goal, approvals, results and next step, and let the user see results and required actions. The end of a response, crossing a day boundary or losing contact with a session does not mean the task is finished or the old execution has stopped.
Take enough input first
Take along the chosen project entry:
- plan, phase and stable task identity;
- approval, status location, sole writer and output scope;
- on recovery, also the old session/execution handle, candidate identity, checkpoint and resource records.
Reuse existing information; do not build a plan for the sake of a template. Missing-input branches:
- No history tool -> recover from on-disk evidence.
- No write permission or final state -> pause only the conflicting writes.
- No usage figures -> write unknown, keep the accumulated total.
- No project or object -> add the minimal locating information.
Files and old chats do not create new authorisation.
Pick the entry
| Current need | Path and action |
| A phase is complete, or results, approvals or in-flight work changed substantively | Read Checkpoints and refresh recoverable facts in the existing status; keep the plan body as the single source. |
| Recovery after compaction, execution-channel failure, user-designated takeover | Read Takeover: locate the object, verify actual execution and write permission, then continue. |
| Deliver results to the user, present open decisions or provide a continuation entry | Read the workbench rules, then use the template: Q waiting on you, N in progress, P scheduled, E ended this cycle. |
| Short Q&A, or a simple change needing no persistent continuation | Finish and reply directly; do not apply the full plan/status/user-page set. |
Shared procedure
The expanded version of this procedure is in Checkpoints section 2.
- Preserve goal and authorisation. Recover this phase's scope and acceptance from the effective approval; the plan body is provided by
plan-designand an existing complete plan is not rewritten. This package's plan envelope is embedded into an existing plan only when it lacks a locating header; it never stores a second body. - Verify current facts. Separate proven, inferred and unknown; verify the actual content of results and the version the evidence points to. An old receipt saying "passed" cannot cover a file changed since. For subtask receipts, follow the receipt contract of
subtask-dispatch: read the header and section locators first, then verify body evidence within bounds; summaries are for navigation only. - Refresh the checkpoint. Trigger: phase complete, or substantive change in results, approvals or in-flight work. Result: results, open items, writer, in-flight work, resources and next step recorded in the existing status with the meaning of the status template; add no file when the existing carrier suffices.
- Verify continuation conditions. While an old session, subtask or tool is still running or unknown, do not seize writes, blindly re-dispatch or release its occupancy. Stopping requires same-scope authorisation and actual control capability; after a stop is accepted, still verify the final state of all related executions. Details in the takeover topic.
- Complete the current delivery. Rebuild the full user workbench under Workbench rules and run its pre-publish self-check.
Give complete decision grounds when needed; otherwise continue authorised work without inventing acceptance or approval requests.
When another agent must act, follow the project's collaboration contract: put the handover entry in plan status and give the user only its locating sentence.
For projects adopting
ai-workspace-governance, use its handover contract. Without a collaboration contract, provide a sentence locating the status's authorised next step; it grants no additional scope. Same-agent session continuation points to the status's next step without a handover ID.
Identity and writer:
- Record the stable plan/task ID and the host session/execution handle separately.
- A successor inherits the task identity and accumulated usage, creates its own execution association, and does not impersonate the old executor.
- Status has exactly one current writer; subtasks deliver only their designated artefacts.
- Old session becomes active again -> re-verify current responsibility before any new write or execution.
Failure and boundaries
- Save failed, evidence missing or read truncated: keep verified facts and gaps first; do not claim the checkpoint is complete or recovered. Continue only work that does not depend on the gap.
- Context or request errors: save recoverable state first, then locate the client, execution channel/gateway, model or tool layer; thresholds need evidence with version, date and applicable scope. This package installs no hooks, does not auto-compact, does not change execution-channel settings and sets up no background polling.
- History grows and decisions are closed: hand originals and effective decisions to
archive-maintenanceper the project retention contract, then refresh the current page; do not delete historical approvals and do not equate archiving with stopping execution. When that package is unavailable, follow the project's existing retention method; do not install the whole library to continue. - Role matching belongs to
role-bootstrap; this package consumes an already determined responsibility. Stopping, messaging, creating sessions, Git or external writes must all fit the original authorisation and are not gained automatically through takeover.
Verifiable delivery and resources
A delivery should answer: which version was approved, how far work got, who may still write, whether the next step can run. Evidence includes result location and content identity, check coverage/unverified items, execution observation time and takeover source; continuation verification is not business acceptance.
Distilling verified material may use low/medium; approval conflicts, drift, write permission and failure judgments suit normal/high. Grade words map to actual execution configuration through the project resource mapping; executors, execution channels and unit occupancy are host limits supplied by project configuration, and missing records do not fabricate costs. Do not dispatch subtasks for a short handover; approved parallelism splits only read-only evidence, and the status and user page each have one writer.
Sources
- Pinned sources: MT02 handoff, CX01 filesystem-context, CX02 context-compression, EC12 strategic-compact.
- Adopted short-entry deduplication, on-demand externalised reading, the intent/files/decisions/status/next-step structure and saving at phase boundaries; authorisation, write permission, in-flight occupancy, the user workbench and failure layering are own-authored for this package. Stage commitments, the Q/N/P/E workbench and handover entries are own-authored. Dropped temp-directory-only storage, auto-compaction/hooks, fixed thresholds, savings ratios and upstream host liveness assertions.
- License: shipped with the package as LICENSE-MT.txt (MT, MIT), LICENSE-CX.txt (CX, MIT), LICENSE-EC.txt (EC, MIT); library-wide third-party summary in the root THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md. Copy the license files along when copying this package alone.
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 12
- asta-nguyen/kamehadb★ 14same name
- asta-nguyen/agent-devkit★ 4same name
- timyeou1234/context-handoff★ 2same name
- Gaurav890/everything-agentic-engineering★ 1same name
- newyounghe-design/context-handoff-skill★ 1same name
- SuperMate-Ai/SuperMate-Harness-System★ 1same name
- vorteg/swagentics★ 1same name
- aimasteracc/harness-kit★ 0same name
- djhyes/context-handoff★ 0same name
- hatemecha/skills★ 0same name
2 more not listed
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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use systematic-debugging.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
OpenAISkillsystematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Also in 3 projects that use this
In this repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-trace-auditSkill
- ai-workspace-governanceSkill
- archive-maintenanceSkill
- change-reviewSkill
- cloud-api-integrationSkill
- coding-conventionsSkill
- container-image-managementSkill
- deployment-patternsSkill
- docker-local-environmentSkill
- documentation-authoringSkill
- estimationSkill
- external-dependency-simulationSkill
- gitlab-webhook-local-gitSkill
- go-patternsSkill
- go-testingSkill
- grpc-proto-contractSkill
- guided-evidence-collectionSkill
- http-api-designSkill
- jenkins-pipeline-jjbSkill
- ldap-rbacSkill
- mysql-migration-safetySkill
- plan-designSkill
- plan-reviewSkill
- playwright-e2eSkill
- project-contextSkill
- pytest-patternsSkill
- readonly-ops-diagnosticsSkill
- redis-patternsSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- role-bootstrapSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- skill-maintenanceSkill
- subtask-dispatchSkill
- systematic-diagnosisSkill
- task-implementationSkill
- test-strategySkill
- verification-gateSkill
- vue3-developmentSkill
- vue-testingSkill
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.

