| name | gps-common |
| description | Use when routing, sourcing, or wording a GPS diagnosis that involves track alignment, evidence status, historical comparisons, or readiness conclusions. |
GPS Common Governance
This is a shared governance layer, not a user-facing review Skill. It keeps routing, source authority, and claim language consistent across GPS passes.
Owns
- Review mode selection and pass boundaries.
- Source hierarchy, 2025 fallback provenance, and source conflicts.
- Status vocabulary and non-predictive readiness language.
- Saved report names and collision handling.
Does not own
- Project intake or final synthesis (
navigator).
- Essence, advantages, selling points, opportunity, or case-pattern transfer (
positioning).
- Claim inspection (
evidence), technical validation (innovation), business judgment (business), or deterministic scoring.
Apply
- Read
references/routing.yaml to select full_diagnosis, quick_triage, or narrow_specialist; respect the owner boundary and required passes.
- Read
references/source-registry.yaml before treating a rule, rubric, or historical material as authoritative.
- Read
references/output-language.md before stating any conclusion, score interpretation, or readiness result.
- When a Markdown report is saved, apply the naming rules below. Preserve a filename and destination explicitly requested by the user.
Saved Markdown reports
Return results in the conversation unless the user asks for a file. When saving without an explicit filename, use these defaults:
| Review type | Default filename |
|---|
| Full diagnosis | <project-name>-GPS评审.md |
| Quick triage | <project-name>-GPS初评.md |
| Narrow specialist | <project-name>-<topic>评审.md |
Use the project name stated by the user or supported by inspected materials. If it is unavailable, use the sanitized project-directory name; if that is also unavailable, use 项目. Keep Unicode names. Replace Windows-reserved filename characters (< > : " / \ | ? *) and control characters with -, collapse repeated separators, and remove trailing spaces or periods.
Do not overwrite an existing report unless the user asks. Append -02, -03 and so on. Suggested specialist topics are 定位, 创新, 市场, 证据, 项目书, PPT and 答辩.
Keep source level, rubric status, and claim status separate. A 2025 rubric may be an official source for 2025 and only a historical_baseline for a 2026 diagnosis.
