本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

lfg

Run the full hands-off engineering pipeline from planning through a green PR.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md10.3 KB
  • references/review-followup.md2.5 KB
  • references/tracker-defer.md14.1 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。

CRITICAL: You MUST execute every step below IN ORDER. Do NOT skip any required step. Do NOT jump ahead to coding or implementation. The plan phase (step 1) MUST be completed and verified BEFORE any work begins. Violating this order produces bad output.

When invoking any skill referenced below, resolve its name against the available-skills list the host platform provides and use that exact entry. Some platforms list skills under a plugin namespace (e.g., compound-engineering:ce-plan); others list the bare name. Invoking a short-form guess that isn't in the list will fail — always match a listed entry verbatim before calling the Skill/Task tool.

  1. Invoke the ce-plan skill with $ARGUMENTS.

    GATE: STOP. If ce-plan reported the task is non-software and cannot be processed in pipeline mode, stop the pipeline and inform the user that LFG requires software tasks. Otherwise, verify that the ce-plan workflow produced a plan file in docs/plans/. If no plan file was created, invoke ce-plan again with $ARGUMENTS. Do NOT proceed to step 2 until a written plan exists. Record the plan file path — it will be passed to ce-work in step 2 and ce-code-review in step 4.

    Read the plan metadata before continuing. If the plan has artifact_contract: ce-unified-plan/v1, proceed only when it has artifact_readiness: implementation-ready and execution: code. Stop the pipeline for artifact_readiness: requirements-only, any unrecognized readiness value, execution: knowledge-work, approach-plan outputs, answer-seeking/universal outputs, or invalid progress-like readiness values. LFG never launches /goal directly; when goal-mode or dynamic workflows are appropriate, ce-work owns that implementation engine choice and must return control to LFG afterward.

  2. Invoke the ce-work skill with mode:return-to-caller <plan-path-from-step-1>.

    GATE: STOP. Verify that implementation work was performed - files were created or modified beyond the plan. Read the structured return and require status: complete, the same plan path, changed files, U-IDs attempted/completed when present, verification results, blocker list, behavior-change signal, and standalone_shipping_skipped: true. Do NOT proceed to step 3 if no code changes were made or if ce-work did not return control in return-to-caller mode.

  3. Invoke the ce-simplify-code skill on the branch diff.

    This runs before review so the code-review in step 4 covers the simplified code. Skip this step when the change is docs-only (only markdown/docs paths changed) or trivial (roughly under 10 changed lines). Otherwise let ce-simplify-code resolve the branch-diff scope itself; it preserves behavior and runs the test suite.

    Do not commit in this step. ce-simplify-code leaves its changes in the working tree; step 4's review scopes the working tree (uncommitted changes included), and step 8's ce-commit-push-pr commits whatever remains. Committing here would sweep any still-uncommitted ce-work edits into a misleading refactor commit and could stall on a tree that never goes clean.

  4. Invoke the ce-code-review skill with mode:agent plan:<plan-path-from-step-1>.

    Pass the plan file path from step 1 so ce-code-review can verify requirements completeness. Read the Actionable Findings summary the skill emits.

    mode:agent is report-only by design — it surfaces findings but never edits the tree; LFG applies the eligible ones in step 5. When narrating progress to the user, frame this as "review found X → applied X in step 5," not as "code review did not auto-fix." A report-only review followed by an LFG-applied fix is the intended contract, not a gap.

Shipping precondition (steps 5–9). Run git remote once before the shipping steps. If it lists no remote (e.g. a sandbox/throwaway checkout that has git init but no origin), shipping is local-only: make every commit the steps below call for, but skip every push, PR create/edit, and CI-watch action — the pushes in steps 5 and 6, the push and PR creation in step 8, and step 9 in full. A missing remote is a terminal local-only state, not an error: never retry a push or hunt for a remote — make the local commits and proceed to step 10. Run steps 5–9 normally when a remote exists.

  1. Apply and persist review fixes (REQUIRED after step 4, before residual handoff)

    Load references/review-followup.md and execute its apply step (mechanical apply + commit/push when changes exist). Do not proceed to the residual handoff, run browser tests, or output DONE while eligible review fixes remain only in the working tree uncommitted.

  2. Autonomous residual handoff (only when step 4 reported one or more actionable downstream-resolver findings not applied in step 5; skip when it reported Actionable findings: none.)

    Do not prompt the user. This step embraces the autopilot contract: residuals must become durable before DONE, but the agent never stops to ask.

    1. Load references/tracker-defer.md in non-interactive mode. Pass the residual actionable findings from step 4/5 (or the run artifact when the summary was truncated).

    2. Collect the structured return: { filed: [...], failed: [...], no_sink: [...] }.

    3. Compose a ## Residual Review Findings markdown section from the structured return:

      • For each item in filed: a bullet with severity, file:line, title, and a link to the tracker ticket URL.
      • For each item in failed: a bullet with severity, file:line, title, and the failure reason (e.g., Defer failed: gh returned 401 — tracker unavailable).
      • For each item in no_sink: a bullet with severity, file:line, and title inlined verbatim so the PR body or fallback file is the durable record.
    4. Detect the current branch's open PR without prompting:

      gh pr view --json number,url,body,state
      
    5. If an open PR exists, update it directly with gh; do not load any confirmation-driven PR update skill. Append or replace the ## Residual Review Findings section in the current PR body, write the new body to an OS temp file, then run:

      gh pr edit PR_NUMBER --body-file BODY_FILE
      
    6. If no open PR exists, create a tracked fallback file at docs/residual-review-findings/<branch-or-head-sha>.md containing the composed section and the source PR-review run context. Stage only that file, commit it with docs(review): record residual review findings, and push the current branch when a remote is configured (per the shipping precondition). If an upstream exists, run git push. If no upstream exists but a remote is configured, resolve a writable remote dynamically: prefer origin when present, otherwise use git remote and choose the first configured remote. Then run git push --set-upstream <remote> HEAD. If there is no remote at all, do not push — the committed fallback file is the durable sink. This is the durable no-PR sink. Do not output DONE until the residual findings are durable: either the existing PR body has been updated, or this fallback file commit has been made (pushed when a remote exists, committed locally when none). A push that fails when a remote exists is a stop-and-report; never retry a push, or block DONE, when no remote exists.

    Never block DONE on tracker filing failures once residuals have been durably recorded. A no_sink outcome is success only when the findings are present in the PR body or in the pushed fallback file.

  3. Invoke the ce-test-browser skill with mode:pipeline.

  4. Invoke the ce-commit-push-pr skill.

    This commits any remaining changes, pushes the branch, and opens a pull request. If step 6 already opened a PR (check with gh pr view --json number,url,state 2>/dev/null), skip PR creation but still commit and push any uncommitted changes. Per the shipping precondition, when no remote is configured, do NOT invoke ce-commit-push-pr — its commit step pushes unconditionally (git push -u origin HEAD), so a literal invocation would still hit the impossible push. Instead commit any remaining changes locally yourself (git add -A && git commit) and skip the push and PR creation entirely.

  5. CI watch and autofix loop (only when an open PR exists for the current branch)

    Detect the PR; if none exists or gh is unavailable, skip this step entirely and proceed to step 10.

    gh pr view --json number,url,state
    

    For up to 3 fix iterations, repeat:

    1. Wait for CI to complete:

      gh pr checks --watch
      

      If the command exits 0, all checks passed. Break out of the loop and proceed to step 10.

      If it exits non-zero, one or more checks failed. Continue to (2).

    2. Identify failing checks and pull their failure logs. Use gh pr checks --json name,state,conclusion,workflow,link to enumerate failures, then for each failing check read the run logs:

      gh run view <run-id> --log-failed
      

      where <run-id> is parsed from the check's details URL or workflow run.

    3. Read the failure logs, identify the root cause, and apply a fix in the working tree. Do NOT weaken, skip, or mock the failing assertion to make it pass — repair the actual issue. If the failure is a flaky test that has no fix path, document that as the residual outcome below rather than retrying without a code change.

    4. Stage only the files you changed, commit, and push:

      git add <changed-files>
      git commit -m "fix(ci): <one-line summary of the failure repaired>"
      git push
      
    5. Return to iteration (1) with the next attempt counter.

    GATE: STOP iterating after 3 failed attempts. If CI is still red after 3 fix cycles:

    • Compose a ## CI Failures Unresolved markdown section listing each remaining failing check, the failure summary, and the run/check URL.

    • Append or replace this section in the PR body, write the new body to an OS temp file, then run:

      gh pr edit PR_NUMBER --body-file BODY_FILE
      
    • Do NOT continue looping. The autopilot contract is "make residuals durable, then exit." Proceed to step 10.

  6. Output <promise>DONE</promise> when complete

Start with step 1 now. Remember: plan FIRST, then work. Never skip the plan.

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

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program," or "experiment playbook." Use this whenever someone is comparing two approaches and wants to measure which performs better, or when they want to build a systematic experimentation practice. For tracking implementation, see analytics. For page-level conversion optimization, see cro.

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。

nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles902026年9月24日 更新

Generate tiered sentence frames for academic tasks that scaffold language production across proficiency levels. Use when EAL students need structured language support for classroom discourse.

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。

nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles902026年9月24日 更新

When the user wants to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative — headlines, descriptions, primary text, or full ad variations — for any paid advertising platform. Also use when the user mentions 'ad copy variations,' 'ad creative,' 'generate headlines,' 'RSA headlines,' 'bulk ad copy,' 'ad iterations,' 'creative testing,' 'ad performance optimization,' 'write me some ads,' 'Facebook ad copy,' 'Google ad headlines,' 'LinkedIn ad text,' or 'I need more ad variations.' Use this whenever someone needs to produce ad copy at scale or iterate on existing ads. For campaign strategy and targeting, see ads. For landing page copy, see copywriting.

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。

nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles902026年9月24日 更新

Generate a cascading hint sequence for a problem type, revealing progressively without giving answers. Use when designing tutoring dialogues or scaffolded worksheets.

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。

nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles902026年9月24日 更新

ads

無料

When the user wants help with paid advertising campaigns on Google Ads, Meta (Facebook/Instagram), LinkedIn, Twitter/X, or other ad platforms. Also use when the user mentions 'PPC,' 'paid media,' 'ROAS,' 'CPA,' 'ad campaign,' 'retargeting,' 'audience targeting,' 'Google Ads,' 'Facebook ads,' 'LinkedIn ads,' 'ad budget,' 'cost per click,' 'ad spend,' or 'should I run ads.' Use this for campaign strategy, audience targeting, bidding, and optimization. For bulk ad creative generation and iteration, see ad-creative. For landing page optimization, see cro.

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。

nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles902026年9月24日 更新

Map control, influence, and concern after systems analysis. Use when students need wise agency without being made responsible for everything.

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。

nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles902026年9月24日 更新

nota-america のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する