Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

unified-notifications-ops

Design a shared notification workflow across GitHub, Linear, local hooks, desktop alerts, and existing communication tools. Classify urgency and ownership, merge duplicate events, and decide which updates need immediate attention, a digest, or a log entry.

OriginalShow the original description

Operate notifications as one ECC-native workflow across GitHub, Linear, desktop alerts, hooks, and connected communication surfaces. Use when the real problem is alert routing, deduplication, escalation, or inbox collapse.

Works withGitHub
AI rating90/ 100See how to install

Good for

  • Consolidate GitHub, Linear, and local hook notifications
  • Reduce duplicate alerts for CI failures
  • Separate urgent alerts from digest updates
  • Assign notification owners and follow-up actions

Overview

What it does

Organizes notifications scattered across GitHub, Linear, local hooks, and desktop alerts into a shared operating policy. It separates each event’s source, urgency, owner, destination, and next action. Duplicate notifications about the same event are combined, then assigned to an immediate alert, digest, pending-action queue, or log.

When it helps

Use it when CI failures, review requests, and issue updates arrive in different places and responses get buried. It also helps when hooks and connected tools already exist but notification policies differ. It checks for both missing important alerts and excessive interruptions, then proposes what to keep, suppress, or merge.

Example requests

  • “Inventory our GitHub, Linear, and local notifications and design a shared workflow.”
  • “Consolidate duplicate CI failure alerts and assign owners and destinations.”
  • “Separate updates that need immediate alerts from those suited to a digest.”

Notes

Email and chat are included only when connected. Existing ECC mechanisms take priority: hooks handle automatic delivery, while MCP or connectors are considered for missing connections. Tokens and secrets must stay out of notifications. If issue triage or project workflow causes the notification problem, it also identifies improvements there.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Objective evaluation

AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.

Clear instructionsIs it clear when to use it and what it does?
AGoodThe usage scenarios and purpose of organizing sources, severity, ownership, and routing are explicitly stated.
Concrete stepsAre steps, inputs, outputs, and examples spelled out?
AGoodIt provides inventory-to-consolidation steps and an output format covering the current surface, severity model, and routing plan.
SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodThe focus is notification design, with explicit rules against exposing secrets and using communication surfaces that are not connected.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
BPartly lackingIt relies on existing hooks, MCPs, or connected tools but provides no connection setup instructions.

The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Unified Notifications Ops

Use this skill when the real problem is not a missing ping. The real problem is a fragmented notification system.

The job is to turn scattered events into one operator surface with:

  • clear severity
  • clear ownership
  • clear routing
  • clear follow-up action

When to Use

  • the user wants a unified notification lane across GitHub, Linear, local hooks, desktop alerts, chat, or email
  • CI failures, review requests, issue updates, and operator events are arriving in disconnected places
  • the current setup creates noise instead of action
  • the user wants to consolidate overlapping notification branches or backlog proposals into one ECC-native lane
  • the workspace already has hooks, MCPs, or connected tools, but no coherent notification policy

Preferred Surface

Start from what already exists:

  • GitHub issues, PRs, reviews, comments, and CI
  • Linear issue/project movement
  • local hook events and session lifecycle signals
  • desktop notification primitives
  • connected email/chat surfaces when they actually exist

Prefer ECC-native orchestration over telling the user to adopt a separate notification product.

Non-Negotiable Rules

  • never expose tokens, secrets, webhook secrets, or internal identifiers
  • separate:
    • event source
    • severity
    • routing channel
    • operator action
  • default to digest-first when interruption cost is unclear
  • do not fan out every event to every channel
  • if the real fix is better issue triage, hook policy, or project flow, say so explicitly

Event Pipeline

Treat the lane as:

  1. Capture the event
  2. Classify urgency and owner
  3. Route to the correct channel
  4. Collapse duplicates and low-signal churn
  5. Attach the next operator action

The goal is fewer, better notifications.

Default Severity Model

ClassExamplesDefault handling
Criticalbroken default-branch CI, security issue, blocked release, failed deployinterrupt now
Highreview requested, failing PR, owner-blocking handoffsame-day alert
Mediumissue state changes, notable comments, backlog movementdigest or queue
Lowrepeat successes, routine churn, redundant lifecycle markerssuppress or fold

If the workspace has no severity model, build one before proposing automation.

Workflow

1. Inventory the current surface

List:

  • event sources
  • current channels
  • existing hooks/scripts that emit alerts
  • duplicate paths for the same event
  • silent failure cases where important things are not being surfaced

Call out what ECC already owns.

2. Decide what deserves interruption

For each event family, answer:

  • who needs to know?
  • how fast do they need to know?
  • should this interrupt, batch, or just log?

Use these defaults:

  • interrupt for release, CI, security, and owner-blocking events
  • digest for medium-signal updates
  • log-only for telemetry and low-signal lifecycle markers

3. Collapse duplicates before adding channels

Look for:

  • the same PR event appearing in GitHub, Linear, and local logs
  • repeated hook notifications for the same failure
  • comments or status churn that should be summarized instead of forwarded raw
  • channels that duplicate each other without adding a better action path

Prefer:

  • one canonical summary
  • one owner
  • one primary channel
  • one fallback path

4. Design the ECC-native workflow

For each real notification need, define:

  • source
  • gate
  • shape: immediate alert, digest, queue, or dashboard-only
  • channel
  • action

If ECC already has the primitive, prefer:

  • a skill for operator triage
  • a hook for automatic emission/enforcement
  • an agent for delegated classification
  • an MCP/connector only when a real bridge is missing

5. Return an action-biased design

End with:

  • what to keep
  • what to suppress
  • what to merge
  • what ECC should wrap next

Output Format

CURRENT SURFACE
- sources
- channels
- duplicates
- gaps

EVENT MODEL
- critical
- high
- medium
- low

ROUTING PLAN
- source -> channel
- why
- operator owner

CONSOLIDATION
- suppress
- merge
- canonical summaries

NEXT ECC MOVE
- skill / hook / agent / MCP
- exact workflow to build next

Recommendation Rules

  • prefer one strong lane over many weak ones
  • prefer digests for medium and low-signal updates
  • prefer hooks when the signal should emit automatically
  • prefer operator skills when the work is triage, routing, and review-first decision-making
  • prefer project-flow-ops when the root cause is backlog / PR coordination rather than alerts
  • prefer workspace-surface-audit when the user first needs a source inventory
  • if desktop notifications are enough, do not invent an unnecessary external bridge

Good Use Cases

  • "We have GitHub, Linear, and local hook alerts, but no single operator flow"
  • "Our CI failures are noisy and people ignore them"
  • "I want one notification policy across Claude, OpenCode, and Codex surfaces"
  • "Figure out what should interrupt versus land in a digest"
  • "Collapse overlapping notification PR ideas into one canonical ECC lane"

Related Skills

  • workspace-surface-audit
  • project-flow-ops
  • github-ops
  • knowledge-ops
  • customer-billing-ops when the notification pain is billing/customer operations rather than engineering

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC284.7KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

agent-architecture-audit

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC284.7KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC284.7KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

agent-harness-construction

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC284.7KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC284.7KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC284.7KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill