本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

service-check

Use to evaluate a service or feature against Downe's 15 principles of good services.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.6 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。

Service Check Skill

Evaluate against Lou Downe's 15 principles.

Checklist

For each principle, assess: Pass / Partial / Fail / N/A

  1. Easy to find: Can users find this service without knowing its name?

    • Discoverable through natural search terms
    • Linked from logical starting points
  2. Clearly explains its purpose: Is it immediately clear what this does?

    • Purpose statement visible without scrolling
    • Target audience identifiable
  3. Sets expectations: Do users know what will happen?

    • Timeline/process visible upfront
    • Requirements stated before starting
  4. Enables completion: Can users finish what they came to do?

    • End-to-end journey works
    • No organizational barriers blocking completion
  5. Familiar: Does it work the way users expect?

    • Uses conventions users know
    • No surprising behavior
  6. No prior knowledge needed: Can a new user succeed?

    • No jargon or acronyms without explanation
    • No assumed context
  7. Agnostic of org structures: Are internal boundaries invisible?

    • Users don't need to know which department handles what
    • No internal handoffs visible to users
  8. Minimum steps: Is every step necessary?

    • No redundant data entry
    • No unnecessary confirmation steps
  9. Consistent: Is language/design uniform throughout?

    • Same terms used for same concepts
    • Visual patterns consistent
  10. No dead ends: Is there always a next step?

    • Error states have recovery paths
    • Edge cases have guidance
  11. Usable by everyone: Is it accessible and inclusive?

    • WCAG 2.1 AA compliant
    • Works across devices and assistive technologies
  12. Encourages right behaviors: Does design nudge good outcomes?

    • No dark patterns (confirmshaming, hidden costs, forced continuity, misdirection, roach motel, trick questions, bait-and-switch)
    • Default options are the safe/good ones
    • Behavioral science used to HELP users, not exploit them (Shotton: ethical application)
    • If dark patterns detected: flag "Dark Pattern Marketing" anti-pattern (see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/harness/anti-patterns.md)
  13. Responds to change: Can it adapt?

    • Handles edge cases gracefully
    • Can be updated without full rebuild
  14. Explains decisions: Are automated decisions transparent?

    • Rejection reasons are clear
    • Algorithm outputs are explainable
  15. Easy to get human help: Can users reach a person?

    • Help/support clearly accessible
    • Escalation path exists

When to Run

  • An L3, before commit_to_build (solution design): Run a lightweight check focusing on principles 1-4, 8, 10, 11. These inform the Four Risks viability dimension — a solution that violates core service principles has viability risk. Feed results into /mycelium:ice-score.
  • An L4's release: Run the full 15-principle check. Required REVIEW gate (G-V2).
  • An L4's close: Final validation. Required REVIEW gate.

Running at L3 catches service design issues BEFORE delivery, not after. A solution that can't meet "enable completion" (P4) or "no dead ends" (P10) has a design problem, not just a quality problem.

Output

## Service Check: [Service Name]
| # | Principle | Status | Notes |
|---|-----------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Easy to find | Pass/Partial/Fail | ... |
...
| 15 | Human help | Pass/Partial/Fail | ... |

Score: [X/15 Pass, Y/15 Partial, Z/15 Fail]
Priority fixes: [top 3 items to address]

Canvas (MANDATORY — the source of truth, do this FIRST)

.claude/canvas/services.yml is the canonical record. The decision log is provenance; the canvas is what the framework READS. Write the canvas before the decision log — if only one of the two lands, it must be this one.

WHY THIS SECTION EXISTS (v0.170.0). It did not, and the cost was measured. A full 15-principle assessment ran on the dogfood project on 2026-05-23 (7 Pass / 8 Partial / 0 Fail), landed in the decision log, and services.yml held every principle at assessment: not-assessed with overall_score: null for 103 days. The scores existed the whole time and no reader of the canvas could see them. The Service Quality theory gate reads this file, so a Required gate at L4 had no data to read while the data sat in a log nothing gates on.

UPDATE, per principle, in principles[]:

  - id: <1-15>
    assessment: pass|partial|fail|not-assessed   # not-assessed ONLY if genuinely not evaluated
    evidence: "<what was observed, and where — a claim a later reader can check>"
    issues: ["<specific, actionable>"]           # [] when none
    last_checked: "YYYY-MM-DD"

Then set the file-level fields: overall_score (the X pass / Y partial / Z fail tally) and last_assessed (today).

not-assessed IS A REAL VERDICT AND MUST NOT BE USED AS A DEFAULT. Leaving a principle at not-assessed after running this skill records "we looked and could not judge" — which is different from "nobody looked", and only one of those is true after a run. If a principle cannot be judged, say why in evidence. A principle whose own fail criterion is "not tested" (P11 accessibility) is a fail, not a not-assessed: the criterion is about the testing, not about the product.

Postflight: Verify-After-Write (write-narration-verification discipline)

Hard rule (per the operating contract's Communication Rules, anti-pattern #7 Stage 2 graduation). Before any user-facing summary claims the assessment was recorded, use the Read tool on the canvas file and confirm the VALUE fields above actually changed — not just _meta.last_validated. A stamp moving while the assessed fields stay at their defaults is the exact failure this skill shipped with: the file reads fresh and holds nothing. Preflight protects what gets written; Postflight protects what gets claimed about what was written.

Decision Log (MANDATORY per G-P4)

APPEND a ### Service Check entry to .claude/harness/decision-log.md with: principles assessed, scores, priority fixes, overall service quality rating.

Theory Citations

  • Downe: Good Services (15 principles)

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

Accessibility audit, scoped to the surfaces a product actually has. Detects web / rendered_markdown / terminal / native_app / video_audio / document / headless, then applies only the criteria that bind. WCAG 2.1 AA in full for web; not at all for headless.

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。

haabe/mycelium462026年10月12日 更新

adopt

無料

Bring Mycelium into a project that already has code. Detects that the repo predates the framework, asks before touching anything, then reads the codebase to draft what it CAN establish (delivery, solution shape) and — the actual point — names what it cannot (purpose, strategy, real user evidence). The output is a discovery backlog with a head start, never a filled canvas.

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。

haabe/mycelium462026年10月12日 更新

Design the smallest viable test to validate or invalidate a critical assumption. Based on Torres's assumption testing framework, organized by Gilad's AFTER model (Assessment → Fact-Finding → Tests → Experiments → Release Results).

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。

haabe/mycelium462026年10月12日 更新

Use before any research activity or significant decision. Reviews cognitive biases relevant to the current stage.

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。

haabe/mycelium462026年10月12日 更新

Use to evaluate whether current work aligns with Better Value Sooner Safer Happier. Run at diamond completion and periodically.

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。

haabe/mycelium462026年10月12日 更新

Lint canvas files for staleness, missing fields, inconsistent evidence types, and orphaned references. Run periodically or before major transitions.

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。

haabe/mycelium462026年10月12日 更新

haabe のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する