本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

shipping-and-launch

Prepare safe production launches — pre-launch checklist, monitoring, staged rollout, and rollback. Load when deploying to production, releasing a major change, opening beta access, or the user asks for a launch checklist, go-live plan, rollout strategy, or rollback plan. Not for local-only prototypes. Pairs with ci-cd-and-automation and app-security-hardening.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md4.3 KB
  • references/examples.md2.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Shipping and Launch

Ship with confidence: reversible, observable, incremental. Every launch has a rollback path and success metrics defined before traffic moves.

Hard Rules

  • No launch without rollback — feature flag, previous artifact, or DB migration down path.
  • Monitoring before traffic — alerts on errors, latency, and business KPIs.
  • Staged rollout — internal → beta → % canary → full unless risk is trivial.
  • Checklist is blocking — unchecked security/perf/a11y items are explicit deferrals with owner.
  • Communicate — stakeholders know window, owner, and rollback trigger.

Workflow

Step 1 — Define success and risk

Document: what ships, who is affected, success metrics, rollback triggers (error rate, latency, support tickets).

Step 2 — Pre-launch checklist

Minimum gates:

  • Tests green (unit, integration, e2e on critical paths)
  • No secrets in repo; dependencies audited for critical CVEs
  • Performance budgets met on changed surfaces
  • Accessibility spot-check on changed UI
  • Runbook: deploy steps, owner, comms channel

Step 3 — Staged rollout

  1. Deploy to staging with prod-like data volume if possible
  2. Internal dogfood or feature flag to staff
  3. Canary (% traffic or invite-only beta)
  4. Full rollout with monitoring watch window

Step 4 — Monitor and decide

Watch 24–72h (risk-dependent): error rate, p95 latency, Core Web Vitals, conversion/support signals.

Step 5 — Rollback or complete

If triggers hit → rollback first, postmortem second. If stable → remove flags, archive runbook learnings.


When NOT to use

  • Pure local dev with no users
  • Changes already live behind a flag with an existing runbook (update runbook only)

Gotchas

  • "Green staging" with 10x less data than prod hides query issues.
  • Launch without feature flags forces redeploy to rollback.
  • Announcing before monitoring is wired means flying blind.
  • Skipping comms strands on-call.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"It's a small change"Small deploys still need rollback and error visibility.
"We'll add alerts after launch"You discover outages from users instead of dashboards.
"Full send is faster"One incident costs more than a canary day.
"Rollback is unlikely"Plan for it anyway — Hyrum's Law applies in prod.
"Checklist is bureaucracy"It's how you remember security and a11y under time pressure.

Output Format

## Launch plan — [feature]

Risk: [low/med/high] | Rollback: [how]
Stages: [list] | Metrics: [list]
Checklist: [pass/deferred items]
Owner / window: [who / when]

Examples

<examples> <example> <input>"Ship new billing flow Friday."</input> <output>Feature flag at 5% → 25% → 100%; dashboards on payment errors; rollback = disable flag; checklist signed.</output> </example> </examples>

Verification

  • Rollback path documented and tested (or dry-run)
  • Monitoring/alerts live before user traffic
  • Staged rollout plan matches risk level
  • Pre-launch checklist complete or deferrals explicit
  • Success metrics and rollback triggers defined

Red Flags

  • Launch without rollback path or previous artifact
  • Traffic shifted before error and KPI monitors exist
  • Full rollout for non-trivial change without canary
  • Staging-only validation at fraction of prod data volume

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Feature: [name] | Risk: [level]
Stages: N | Rollback: [ready/deferred]
Checklist: [N pass / M deferred]

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

dvy1987 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する