mirror of
https://github.com/magnus919/agent-skills.git
synced 2026-09-20 16:16:25 +03:00
Two contained amendments to the delivery lifecycle bundle: - references/position-assessment.md: a bounded entry mode for mid-flight engagement - continuing work that started elsewhere with no delivery packet. Inventories observable artifacts, scores them against phase exit conditions, emits a position report (current step, satisfied gates with evidence pointers, remaining checklist), then bootstraps a packet. Artifacts over narratives: unevidenced claims become recorded assumptions, never satisfied gates. - references/tracker-discovery.md: an intake sub-step that detects which tracking system holds the work item and routes tracker operations to the matching catalog tooling skill (linear, jira-cli, notion). Keeps the journey vocabulary tracker-neutral; platform nouns stay confined to platform mapping rows and lifecycle reference modes. Wiring: SKILL.md gains the conditional mid-flight section and file-map rows; journey.md gains the tracker-neutrality statement, phase-1 tracking field, and mid-flight entry pointer; routing-table.md gains linear, jira-cli, and notion rows in the existing signal/skip format. README triggers extended. Two eval cases added to keep the coverage ratchet green. Closes #371 Signed-off-by: Magnus Hedemark <magnus919@users.noreply.github.com>
93 lines
6.5 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
6.5 KiB
Markdown
# neckbeard
|
|
|
|
An evidence-driven operating model for software delivery — not a "10x developer"
|
|
persona, but a disciplined workflow that helps an AI agent choose the smallest
|
|
*safe* intervention, prove it worked at the real delivery boundary, and leave an
|
|
audit trail a human can inspect.
|
|
|
|
## Why Install This Skill
|
|
|
|
Most "senior developer" prompts fail the same way: they make an agent emit short,
|
|
confident code and call it effectiveness. Scott Logic's critique of the Ponytail
|
|
benchmark showed that a static behavioral prompt plus a narrow, gameable metric
|
|
(lines of code) cannot substantiate any real claim about software engineering.
|
|
Swapping the persona for the three words "Follow YAGNI principles" nearly matched
|
|
its score.
|
|
|
|
neckbeard is the answer to that failure mode. Instead of performing a character,
|
|
it gives an agent a bounded, stage-aware spine: frame the change, discover the
|
|
real system before designing, pick the smallest intervention that is still safe,
|
|
execute by SDLC stage, record evidence, and stop or escalate when the evidence
|
|
runs out. Minimalism is treated as a *consequence of understanding*, not a reflex
|
|
— so the bundle does not win by reflexively deleting or compressing.
|
|
|
|
Install it when you want delivery discipline that is inspectable. Every
|
|
non-trivial run produces an evidence ledger: intent, inspected artifacts,
|
|
assumptions, rejected alternatives, files changed, checks run, observed outputs,
|
|
and the boundaries that were *not* verified. "Done" is prohibited unless the
|
|
declared verification target was actually exercised. For a test-only regression
|
|
guard around already-correct production behavior, the bundle uses a bounded
|
|
lightweight path with clean-baseline and targeted-mutant evidence rather than
|
|
ordinary bug-fix reproduction requirements.
|
|
|
|
## What You Get
|
|
|
|
| Path | What it provides |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| `SKILL.md` | Thin umbrella that routes a request through the delivery spine and composes specialist catalog skills |
|
|
| `references/stages.md` | Entry conditions, required evidence, exit conditions, and escalation rules for each SDLC stage |
|
|
| `references/lightweight-test-hardening.md` | Bounded path for test-only regression guards: baseline-pass / mutant-fail evidence, hermeticity, finality-before-push, and review pacing |
|
|
| `references/evidence-ledger.md` | The ledger schema and the rules for distinguishing a component check from a delivery-boundary check |
|
|
| `references/risk-authority-gates.md` | Stop and escalation rules; the gate before any mutation, deploy, merge, or destructive act |
|
|
| `references/routing-table.md` | "Use existing skill instead" table so the bundle composes the catalog rather than swallowing it |
|
|
| `references/journey.md` | Canonical 9-phase change-request journey — intake, discovery, design, spec, test plan, implementation, review, readiness, authorized release — with four delivery paths |
|
|
| `references/lifecycle.md` | Platform mechanics for GitHub (reference mode) and enterprise contexts — intake snapshots, CI/review monitoring, terminal states, and post-merge release authority |
|
|
| `references/delivery-packet.md` | Durable cross-phase handoff: provenance, resumability, gate verdicts, exact-head binding, lifecycle states, and an artifact ownership map |
|
|
| `references/position-assessment.md` | Entry mode for picking up delivery work that started elsewhere: artifact inventory, phase exit-condition scoring, a position report, and packet bootstrap |
|
|
| `references/tracker-discovery.md` | Intake sub-step that detects which tracking system holds the work item and routes tracker operations to the matching tooling skill (`linear`, `jira-cli`, `notion`) |
|
|
| `references/evaluation.md` | Evaluation methodology: fixtures, baselines, rubrics, multi-run reporting, claims policy |
|
|
| `templates/` | Change contract, decision record, evidence ledger, verification plan, evaluation report |
|
|
| `templates/delivery-packet.md` | Fillable delivery packet template mirroring the nine field groups defined in the reference |
|
|
| `evals/evals.json` | Schema-v1 output-quality evaluation cases covering routing, gates, skip reasons, exact-head binding, terminal states, and lightweight test-hardening semantics |
|
|
| `eval/` | Versioned evaluation harness: task schema, scoring rubric, baseline protocol, fixtures, and a runner |
|
|
|
|
## Quick Start
|
|
|
|
Load the umbrella when a non-trivial change lands — read `SKILL.md` and follow
|
|
its core loop. For a bug, the agent frames a change contract, loads
|
|
`systematic-debugging` for root cause, makes the smallest safe fix, verifies at
|
|
the real boundary, and writes an evidence ledger. For a feature, it routes
|
|
discovery to `product-discovery` and specification to `spec-driven-development`
|
|
before writing code.
|
|
|
|
To run the evaluation suite against your harness:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
python3 eval/run_eval.py --suite eval/fixtures --report out/report.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Triggers
|
|
|
|
- Asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software where the work is non-trivial.
|
|
- A change needs a defensible "done" backed by evidence, not a claim.
|
|
- You want an inspectable record of what was inspected, assumed, changed, and left unverified.
|
|
- You need to evaluate whether a delivery skill actually improves outcomes.
|
|
- You are delivering a **change request** — an issue, ticket, or tracked request — from intake through planning, gates, implementation, and review to a verified PR (or equivalent reviewable deliverable).
|
|
- You need to carry work from an **issue to a PR to an authorized post-merge release** with resumable, exact-head-bound state across phases.
|
|
- You are asked to **continue work someone else started** — a half-implemented branch or adopted spec with no delivery packet — and need an evidence-based answer to "what step are we on and what remains?"
|
|
- Your product tracks work in **Linear, Jira, or Notion**, and the lifecycle should operate that system through its own tooling skill instead of assuming GitHub.
|
|
|
|
Do not trigger for single factual questions, fully-specified one-line edits, or
|
|
tasks already owned end-to-end by a more specific skill. The change-request
|
|
journey is not loaded for a plain fix, refactor, or review that has no
|
|
issue/ticket trajectory.
|
|
|
|
## Requirements
|
|
|
|
- An agent harness with file read/write, terminal access, and skill loading.
|
|
- No network or runtime dependency in the bundle itself.
|
|
- The evaluation runner needs Python 3.9+ (standard library only).
|
|
- Recommended companion catalog skills (loaded on demand, not required):
|
|
`product-discovery`, `spec-driven-development`, `software-architecture-analysis`,
|
|
`systematic-debugging`, `technical-documentation`, `verification-methodology`.
|