handoff
Write a handoff doc for the next session — either continuing the current arc, or proposing the natural next pickup if the current arc is wrapping up.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Write a handoff doc for the next session — either continuing the current arc, or proposing the natural next pickup if the current arc is wrapping up.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | handoff |
| description | Write a handoff doc for the next session — either continuing the current arc, or proposing the natural next pickup if the current arc is wrapping up. |
| origin | crucible |
Write a handoff document so a fresh agent (with no memory of this conversation) can pick up where we left off.
Skill type: Rigid — follow the process; omit-over-fill is preferred over padding.
Execution model: Direct execution by the orchestrator. No subagent dispatch.
Announce at start: Output [handoff] Writing handoff document... before any processing.
Do not start or continue the work itself. Your only job here is to produce the handoff file. If you notice something that needs doing, write it as an open question — don't go fix it.
Before writing anything, sanity-check that there's actually something to hand off. Run these sub-steps in order:
git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree. If it fails (not a git repo), ask the user where to write the file and what scope counts as "the project," then proceed using whatever they say. Skip git-specific verification steps in the rest of the process when in this mode. This step always runs first regardless of $ARGUMENTS.$ARGUMENTS (see bottom of this file) is non-empty, treat it as sufficient evidence of an arc and skip step 3. Proceed to Mode selection.git status shows modifications/staged), recent commits on a non-default branch, or an active line of investigation in the conversation? If none of the above apply (fresh session, clean tree, no real conversation history): tell the user there's nothing to hand off, suggest they invoke /handoff again after doing some work, and stop. Do not create a file.Survey the current session and the project state, then decide:
(A) Continuation handoff — when there's clearly an in-progress arc:
(B) Backlog handoff — when the current arc is genuinely wrapping up:
If you're in mode A but want to mention upcoming-pickup candidates, add a brief "Next on deck" subsection to the Continuation handoff — don't switch modes.
Ambiguity check — ask, don't guess. If the session has clear signals for one mode (mid-feature with concrete next steps → A; user just said "we shipped, what's next?" → B), pick silently and state the choice + one-line reason at the top of the doc. But if the session genuinely could go either way — e.g., one arc just shipped AND a separate half-done thread exists, or the user paused with no clear "done" signal but also no obvious next action — surface the choice to the user with one-line summaries of what each mode would produce, and let them pick. The user has context the model doesn't (what they're about to do next, whether the half-done thread matters). When the user is away or asks for default behavior, fall back to (A) — losing context is more costly than losing pickup recommendations.
Lead with what to do next — a fresh agent should be able to start the very next concrete action within 60 seconds of reading. Then layer in the context they need to act sensibly.
Sections to consider, in this order. Skip any section that would only contain restated generalities or filler — empty omission is preferred over padding. "Required" means "include if there's something real to put in it."
CLAUDE.md and MEMORY.md if those exist; otherwise capture from conversation.Lead with what just shipped so the next agent understands what's now stable. Then propose pickups, ordered by what makes the most sense to do next given the actual state of the codebase and project.
Same omit-over-filler rule applies.
Read the room. Survey the conversation, recent git log, recent PRs/issues, and the project's MEMORY.md / CLAUDE.md (if present) to understand current state.
For mode B, also identify the scope of the just-shipped arc by reading the most recent merged PRs/commits and the tickets they close. State the inferred scope (milestone, epic, label, or topic name) explicitly at the top of the handoff doc. If the scope is genuinely ambiguous (multiple plausible milestones), surface 2-3 candidates and ask the user which to use before continuing.
Decide A vs B. State your choice and one-line reason at the top of the doc.
Source the backlog (mode B only). Detect the project's issue tracker before querying:
git remote -v. If github.com and gh is on PATH → gh issue list.gitlab.com and glab is on PATH → glab issue list.gh issue list / glab issue list, filter by the milestone, epic label, or topic identified in step 1 (e.g., gh issue list --milestone 'Hex Phase 3' or --label epic:foo). Only fall back to an unfiltered list if no scope can be derived from the session.docs/plans/, docs/todo.md, TODO.md, in-tree // TODO: comments). Never invent issue numbers — if you can't find a real source, say so and ask the user.Verify load-bearing claims, with a budget. Spend at most a handful of tool calls verifying things you're about to cite (current branch name, last commit SHA, PR numbers, file paths, function names). If a claim can't be cheaply verified, mark it (unverified) in the doc rather than digging deeper. Don't audit the entire codebase.
Write the file. Detect the project's handoff convention before choosing a path:
docs/handoffs/, handoffs/, or .handoffs/ directory in the project root. If one exists, use it and match the filename style of the most recent file in that directory (ls -t | head it).docs/handoffs/YYYY-MM-DD-<short-topic-slug>.md. Create the directory if needed and note the new convention in the doc itself.<milestone-or-epic>-backlog).-pt2 (or -pt3, etc.) appended to the slug, and reference the prior file's path in the new file's first paragraph. The Read this doc and continue: line then points unambiguously at the freshest content.Output the file path — see Output Contract below.
The user explicitly asked for the file location in the response. Make it impossible to miss:
Read this doc and continue: <absolute path>. Example: Read this doc and continue: /home/user/project/docs/handoffs/2026-04-19-foo.md<repo-root>/<relative-path> where repo-root comes from git rev-parse --show-toplevel. Native path separators are fine (Windows backslashes are acceptable). In the non-git fallback mode (see Step 0), use whatever absolute path the user directed you to write to.Read this doc and continue: (none — nothing to hand off) — same no-fence rule applies.(unverified).2026-04-19), not relative (yesterday, this week) — handoffs are read days or weeks later.Additional user instructions for this handoff (may be empty — if empty, proceed with the defaults above; if non-empty, treat as scoping/emphasis hints, not as a replacement for the process):
$ARGUMENTS
Consolidated pre-push review gate — runs the full reviewer set (temper, delve, red-team, plus siege/inquisitor when the diff warrants) as one gate and emits a single PASS/BLOCKED verdict. Use when you want the *complete* pre-push bar in one call — "gate this before I push", "run the full review gate", "run all the reviewers", "warden". NOT for a single-reviewer pass: a fresh-eyes code review stays with temper, red-teaming a design/plan stays with quality-gate, a bug-hunt on a diff stays with delve.
Use when starting any feature development, building new functionality, implementing a design, or going from idea to working code. Triggers on "build", "implement", "add feature", or any task requiring design-through-execution.
Iterative red-teaming of any artifact (design docs, plans, code, hypotheses, mockups). Loops until clean or stagnation. Invoked by artifact-producing skills or their parent orchestrator.
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
Eval-only skill for measuring skill routing accuracy. Not invoked directly — contains selection evals that test whether the agent picks the correct skill for a given prompt.
Iteratively review code changes for production readiness through fresh-eyes review loops. Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or reviewing a change for production readiness — including when the user says "review this PR", "review my changes", "code review", "check the diff", or "is this ready to ship". Works on PRs from any forge (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, self-hosted) or on raw git SHA ranges.