Skip to content
Closed
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions skills/summit/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Summit Skill Pack

This pack encodes repeatable Summit operating rituals into portable skills.

## Included skills
- `atomic-pr-planner`
- `ga-gate-reviewer`
- `pilot-proof-pack-writer`
- `closed-pr-rehydrator`
- `trust-claim-auditor`

Each skill is intentionally compact: trigger-rich `description` frontmatter and
strict output contracts in the body.
42 changes: 42 additions & 0 deletions skills/summit/atomic-pr-planner/SKILL.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
---
name: atomic-pr-planner
version: 1.0.0
description: |
Breaks a requested Summit feature or initiative into a strict atomic PR stack
with acceptance criteria, file targets, risks, tests, and merge order.
Use when planning implementation, recovering roadmap execution, or converting
strategy into Codex-ready PRs.
Triggers on: "make a PR stack", "plan the next PRs", "turn this into atomic
PRs", "what are the exact next PRs", "split this into mergeable units".
---

# atomic-pr-planner

Generate first. Do not ask clarifying questions before producing the first draft.

## Required output
For each PR provide:
1. PR title (Conventional Commit style)
2. Objective
3. Exact files likely touched
4. Implementation steps
5. Tests / validation commands
6. Acceptance criteria
7. Risks / rollback plan
8. Why this PR is atomic
9. Merge-order dependency

## Quality rules
- Prefer the smallest mergeable unit.
- Never mix infra, product, and docs unless required for one testable outcome.
- Call out hidden coupling explicitly.
- Fail closed: if a step cannot be validated, mark it **BLOCKED** with reason.
- Include a "deferred" list for intentionally constrained scope.

## Output format
Return:
- `PR-STACK-SUMMARY`
- `PR-1..N` sections with the nine required fields
- `DEPENDENCY-DAG` as `PR-x -> PR-y`
- `BLOCKERS` (or `none`)
- `DEFERRED` (or `none`)
36 changes: 36 additions & 0 deletions skills/summit/closed-pr-rehydrator/SKILL.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
---
name: closed-pr-rehydrator
version: 1.0.0
description: |
Reviews merged or closed PR context and extracts salvageable work into a new
merge plan with conflict notes, dependency mapping, and reimplementation
sequence. Use when reviving abandoned work, reconciling duplicate PRs, or
recovering roadmap execution from stale branches.
Triggers on: "rehydrate closed PR", "salvage from old PR", "recover merged
context", "duplicate PR cleanup", "extract reusable changes".
---

# closed-pr-rehydrator

Generate first. Clarify only after presenting the first salvage map.

## Required workflow
1. Identify source PR scope and intent
2. Classify content: reusable, obsolete, conflicting, superseded
3. Produce extraction plan by atomic commit slices
4. Define validation per slice
5. Emit merge strategy and rollback path

## Rules
- Prefer reuse of validated code over rewrite.
- Explicitly label superseded work and canonical replacement.
- Surface hidden dependencies before proposing cherry-picks.
- If provenance is unclear, mark as `QUARANTINED`.

## Output format
Return sections exactly:
- `SOURCE-CONTEXT`
- `SALVAGE-MAP`
- `ATOMIC-EXTRACTION-PLAN`
- `VALIDATION-CHECKLIST`
- `MERGE-AND-ROLLBACK-STRATEGY`
41 changes: 41 additions & 0 deletions skills/summit/ga-gate-reviewer/SKILL.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
---
name: ga-gate-reviewer
version: 1.0.0
description: |
Evaluates a Summit branch against GA readiness gates and outputs deterministic
PASS/FAIL status with missing evidence and remediation steps.
Use when asked to run a GA readiness check, pre-merge gate review, cut-line
validation, or release hardening review.
Triggers on: "ga gate", "ga readiness", "cut line", "release gates",
"what evidence is missing", "is this branch GA-ready".
---

# ga-gate-reviewer

Generate first. Ask clarifying questions only after the first pass if evidence is missing.

## Inputs to inspect
- Changed files and affected surfaces
- Required checks and workflow outcomes
- Evidence artifacts referenced by governance docs
- Test, lint, typecheck, and smoke outputs

## Required output
1. Overall decision: `PASS`, `FAIL`, or `CONDITIONAL-PASS`
2. Gate matrix table: gate, expected evidence, observed evidence, status
3. Missing evidence list with exact artifact names/paths
4. Remediation plan with ordered actions
5. Residual risk statement with rollback triggers

## Decision policy
- Mark `FAIL` if any required gate lacks evidence.
- Mark `CONDITIONAL-PASS` only when risk is bounded and remediation is explicit.
- Never infer a pass from intent; require traceable artifacts.

## Output format
Return sections exactly:
- `GA-DECISION`
- `GATE-MATRIX`
- `MISSING-EVIDENCE`
- `REMEDIATION-PLAN`
- `RESIDUAL-RISK`
36 changes: 36 additions & 0 deletions skills/summit/pilot-proof-pack-writer/SKILL.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
---
name: pilot-proof-pack-writer
version: 1.0.0
description: |
Produces pilot-proof collateral for Summit in a fixed bundle structure:
ADR summary, demo narrative, evidence index, validation plan, and rollback
notes. Use when preparing pilot readiness packets, customer proof packages,
or governance-ready release narratives.
Triggers on: "pilot pack", "proof pack", "write ADR/demo/evidence bundle",
"pilot readiness artifacts", "customer validation packet".
---

# pilot-proof-pack-writer

Generate first. Do not delay initial output for clarification.

## Required bundle
1. ADR snapshot (decision, context, alternatives, consequences)
2. Demo script (setup, flow, expected outputs, failure handling)
3. Evidence index (artifact name, source path, verification command)
4. Validation matrix (requirement -> test -> result placeholder)
5. Rollback and accountability window
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

The term 'accountability window' is used here, but the corresponding output section is named ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING (line 36). Aligning the terminology ensures the agent correctly maps this requirement to the output section.

Suggested change
5. Rollback and accountability window
5. Rollback and monitoring (including accountability window)


## Constraints
- Use deterministic headings.
- Prefer verifiable claims with explicit artifact pointers.
- If evidence is absent, mark `EVIDENCE-MISSING` and continue.
- Keep language execution-oriented, not promotional.

## Output format
Return sections exactly:
- `ADR-SNAPSHOT`
- `DEMO-SCRIPT`
- `EVIDENCE-INDEX`
- `VALIDATION-MATRIX`
- `ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING`
Comment on lines +22 to +36
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Align rollback terminology between required bundle and output section.

Line 22 says “Rollback and accountability window,” but the required section is ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING. Use the same wording in both places to avoid ambiguous outputs.

Suggested wording alignment
-5. Rollback and accountability window
+5. Rollback and monitoring plan (including accountability window)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@skills/summit/pilot-proof-pack-writer/SKILL.md` around lines 22 - 36, The
heading "Rollback and accountability window" is inconsistent with the required
output section name `ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING`; update the SKILL.md heading so it
exactly matches the required section token `ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING`
(case-sensitive) and ensure any internal references or bullets that mention
"Rollback and accountability window" use the same `ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING`
phrasing; specifically edit the header text near the top of SKILL.md and any
occurrences in the document to use the canonical `ROLLBACK-AND-MONITORING` token
so outputs will match the expected section list.

36 changes: 36 additions & 0 deletions skills/summit/trust-claim-auditor/SKILL.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
---
name: trust-claim-auditor
version: 1.0.0
description: |
Audits Summit product, compliance, or sales claims against traceable evidence
and outputs claim verdicts with confidence, gaps, and remediation actions.
Use when validating external-facing assertions, trust-center language,
security/compliance statements, or launch messaging.
Triggers on: "audit this claim", "is this claim defensible", "trust claim",
"evidence-backed messaging", "validate sales statement".
---

# trust-claim-auditor

Generate first. Do not block on clarifications before initial verdicts.

## Required output per claim
1. Claim text
2. Verdict: `SUPPORTED`, `PARTIAL`, `UNSUPPORTED`, or `CONTRADICTED`
3. Evidence map with exact file/artifact references
4. Confidence score (0.00-1.00) and basis
5. Gap list and remediation actions
Comment on lines +17 to +22
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

The 'Required output per claim' list is missing the HUMAN-REVIEW-FLAGS section mentioned in the 'Output format' (line 36) and 'Rules' (line 27). Adding it here ensures the agent treats it as a mandatory part of the claim analysis.

Suggested change
## Required output per claim
1. Claim text
2. Verdict: `SUPPORTED`, `PARTIAL`, `UNSUPPORTED`, or `CONTRADICTED`
3. Evidence map with exact file/artifact references
4. Confidence score (0.00-1.00) and basis
5. Gap list and remediation actions
## Required output per claim
1. Claim text
2. Verdict: `SUPPORTED`, `PARTIAL`, `UNSUPPORTED`, or `CONTRADICTED`
3. Evidence map with exact file/artifact references
4. Confidence score (0.00-1.00) and basis
5. Gap list and remediation actions
6. Human review flags (for legal/compliance-sensitive language)


## Rules
- No evidence, no support.
- Distinguish implementation evidence from aspirational roadmap items.
- Flag legal/compliance-sensitive language for human review.
- If evidence conflicts, default to `CONTRADICTED` until reconciled.

## Output format
Return sections exactly:
- `CLAIM-INVENTORY`
- `VERDICT-TABLE`
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

Specifying the expected columns for the VERDICT-TABLE helps the agent produce a structured and consistent summary of the audit results, including the confidence score and basis.

Suggested change
- `VERDICT-TABLE`
- `VERDICT-TABLE` (Claim, Verdict, Confidence, Basis)

- `EVIDENCE-MAP`
- `GAP-REMEDIATION-PLAN`
- `HUMAN-REVIEW-FLAGS`
Loading