Skip to main content

best-practices-project-state

Standards and workflow for creating root-level PROJECT_STATE.md reports from local receipts, project knowledge, stale/aspirational audits, competitor research, and external reviewer evidence. Use when asked for project state, comprehensive project review, "what works and what is missing", stale code/doc assessment, competitive positioning, or a PROJECT_STATE.md deliverable.

Quellinformationen

Repository
grahama1970/agent-stack-public
Letzte Quellaktivität
24. September 2026 um 15:51
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
0
Forks
0

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

Datei-Explorer
9 Dateien

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
best-practices-project-state
description
Standards and workflow for creating root-level PROJECT_STATE.md reports from local receipts, project knowledge, stale/aspirational audits, competitor research, and external reviewer evidence. Use when asked for project state, comprehensive project review, "what works and what is missing", stale code/doc assessment, competitive positioning, or a PROJECT_STATE.md deliverable.
triggers
["project state best practices","PROJECT_STATE.md","comprehensive project review","what works and what is missing","stale aspirational missing","competitive project comparison"]
provides
["project-state-report-standard","project-state-review-bundle","project-state-validation"]
composes
["project-knowledge","project-state","memory","ask","browser-oracle","brave-search","github-search","dogpile","best-practices-python","best-practices-skills","agentic-evals"]
complies
["best-practices-skills","best-practices-python"]
runtime_self_improvement
basic
taxonomy
["assessment","research","documentation","validation"]
disciplines
["engineering-standards","observability-operations"]
# Best Practices: PROJECT_STATE.md Use this skill to produce a durable root-level `PROJECT_STATE.md` that a human, nightly subagent, or reviewer can inspect without reconstructing the session. The report is an evidence-backed project snapshot, not a status essay. ## Required Inputs Collect these receipts before drafting: - Current local sanity command and receipt, for example `bash scripts/sanity.sh` and `.artifacts/sanity/<timestamp>/summary.json`. - `PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md` and, when available, `$project-knowledge read --refresh`. - Old `$project-state` output only as an input signal; do not let it define the final structure when it is stale or Embry-specific. - Git state: branch, remote, dirty tracked/untracked counts, and recent commits. - Stale/aspirational audit: docs with TODO/future/planned language, unreferenced files, parse failures, missing imports, and known broken tests. - Browser-oracle resolve/doctor receipt for the project. - Research receipts from `$brave-search`, `$github-search`, and `$dogpile`. - `$ask` WebGPT review artifacts for the assembled review bundle. ## Research Workflow Run research before WebGPT review so the reviewer sees evidence, not just local assumptions. 1. Use `$brave-search` for current product/library/research landscape. 2. Use `$github-search` for comparable repositories, code patterns, issues, README positioning, and maintenance signals. 3. Use `$dogpile` for multi-source synthesis and ambiguity handling. Preserve `dogpile_partial_results.json`, final Markdown/HTML reports, and provider degradation notes. 4. Build a review bundle with local receipts plus research outputs. 5. Use `$ask` through the real runtime for WebGPT or a broader panel. Attach the bundle content or a readable bundle file; a browser tab cannot inspect bare paths by itself. 6. Reconcile reviewer claims against local evidence before writing `PROJECT_STATE.md`. ## Required Report Shape `PROJECT_STATE.md` must include these top-level sections: 1. `# Project State: <project>` 2. `## Executive Summary` 3. `## Evidence Receipts` 4. `## What Works` 5. `## Outstanding Gaps` 6. `## Aspirational Or Stale Material` 7. `## Missing Or Regressed Capabilities` 8. `## Competitive And Research Landscape` 9. `## Project Positioning` 10. `## Risks And Unknowns` 11. `## Recommended Next Actions` Each material claim must cite a receipt path, command output, research artifact, or reviewer artifact. If evidence is missing, write `not established` and name the missing receipt. ## Claim Discipline - Distinguish `working`, `partially working`, `not established`, `stale`, `aspirational`, and `missing`. - Do not infer production readiness from mocked tests, empty logs, absent errors, or reviewer prose. - Mark competitor/research claims with source artifacts and date. - Keep project positioning sober: say where the project can own a niche only when local capabilities and external comparison support it. - Do not hide failed checks. Failed tests and degraded providers belong in `Evidence Receipts` and `Risks And Unknowns`. ## Project-Knowledge Composition After `PROJECT_STATE.md` is written and validated: - Update `PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md` with a compact section pointing to the state report and the key new durable lessons. - Run `$project-knowledge sync` when available so memory recall can find the state summary. - Do not replace `PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md` with `PROJECT_STATE.md`; the former is rolling shared context, the latter is a dated assessment artifact. ## Validation Run: ```bash bash scripts/sanity.sh uv run --project . python scripts/validate_project_state.py /path/to/PROJECT_STATE.md ``` The validator checks required sections and basic receipt-path evidence. It is a format/evidence-floor gate only; it does not prove the project is healthy. For live review readiness, run the opt-in gate: ```bash bash scripts/sanity-live.sh /path/to/project ``` The live gate calls the real browser-oracle resolver and checks that the research/review skill entrypoints needed by this workflow are present. It does not replace the actual `$brave-search`, `$github-search`, `$dogpile`, or `$ask` run receipts required for a final `PROJECT_STATE.md`. ## Nightly Use Nightly subagents should be incremental: - Reuse unchanged receipts when files and commands have not changed since the last valid state report. - Rerun sanity, best-practices, research, and reviewer steps for changed files, changed dependencies, changed claims, stale receipts, or failed prior gates. - Commit and push only the coherent state-report slice when validation and required local checks pass.
Auf GitHub ansehen