本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

done-blocked

Reusable reporting contract for any agent that hands work back to the pipeline. Forces ONE of two terminal statuses (DONE or BLOCKED) with a specific evidence shape. Stops vague "probably finished" and "kind of stuck" verdicts.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.1 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。

DONE / BLOCKED Reporting Contract

Terminal status is exactly two states, and BLOCKED requires specific evidence — not vague obstruction reports.

The contract

Every agent's final handoff line is one of:

DONE: <one-sentence summary of what shipped>
  artifact: <path to report/PR/commit>
  next: <who picks this up — pipeline stage, gate, or "pipeline continues">
BLOCKED: <one-sentence summary of the obstacle>
  tried: <what was attempted — file paths, commands, error signatures>
  failed_because: <concrete reason — not "unclear", not "complex">
  need: <specific unblock — file access, missing config, CTO decision, another agent>

Hard rules

  1. No third state. "Mostly done", "done with caveats", "almost there" → choose. If caveats exist, the caveat itself decides:

    • Caveat is cosmetic / P2+ → DONE (file a Beads bug, move on)
    • Caveat blocks the next pipeline stage → BLOCKED (do not pretend)
  2. BLOCKED requires three fields. tried + failed_because + need. Missing any field → the verdict is rejected and the agent must re-report. No exceptions for "obvious" cases.

  3. Silence is not DONE. If the agent stops producing output without a terminal line, the parent / next stage treats it as BLOCKED with failed_because: silent — no terminal verdict written.

  4. failed_because must be concrete. These are rejected:

    • "environment issue" → say which command failed with what error
    • "tests failing" → say which tests and the actual assertion message
    • "unclear requirements" → say which decision is needed and the two options
    • "not enough context" → say which file / doc / config you tried to read
  5. need names a specific unblock. These are rejected:

    • "more information" → ask one specific question
    • "help from another agent" → name the agent (architect / security-officer / …)
    • "CTO approval" → state the exact choice (approve gate X, pick option A vs B, waive check)

Where the verdict goes

Every agent writes the verdict to two places:

  1. Last line of agent output (visible to the orchestrator that spawned it).
  2. .great_cto/verdicts/<agent>-<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMMSS>.log — append-only audit trail.
mkdir -p .great_cto/verdicts
VERDICT_FILE=".great_cto/verdicts/<agent>-$(date -u +%Y-%m-%d-%H%M%S).log"
printf '%s\n' "$VERDICT_LINE" > "$VERDICT_FILE"

Examples

Good — DONE:

DONE: CSO audit passed — 0 P0, 2 P1 findings filed as Beads tasks.
  artifact: docs/security/CSO-2026-04-19.md
  next: gate:ship ready for CTO approval

Good — BLOCKED:

BLOCKED: senior-dev cannot claim task BD-42 — circular dependency with BD-38.
  tried: bd ready → BD-42 did not appear; bd dep tree BD-42 → shows BD-38 blocks BD-42, BD-42 blocks BD-38
  failed_because: both tasks depend on each other transitively (BD-42 → BD-38 → BD-39 → BD-42)
  need: architect to split BD-39 into two tasks so the cycle breaks

Rejected — vague BLOCKED:

BLOCKED: couldn't finish QA — environment problems.
  tried: ran tests
  failed_because: stuff broken
  need: help

Why rejected: tried lacks command/path; failed_because is tautological; need is not actionable.

Measuring the contract

.great_cto/verdicts/*.log is machine-readable. Weekly digest can compute:

  • DONE:BLOCKED ratio per agent — too many BLOCKED from one agent = that role is under-resourced or prompt is unclear
  • failed_because clustering — if the same reason appears 3+ times, that's a recurring obstruction worth a meta-fix (tooling, doc, skill)
  • Silence rate (agents with no terminal verdict written) — should trend to zero

Anti-patterns

  • Writing both DONE and BLOCKED in the same report ("DONE but blocked on X"). Pick one. If you're blocked, the work isn't done.
  • Using DONE as a politeness signal when the gate still fails. The verdict is for the machine, not the CTO's feelings.
  • Writing the verdict only to stdout without persisting to .great_cto/verdicts/. The audit trail is what makes the contract measurable.

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

great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks, Geist Mono is machine-truth), tabular numerals, and a dash that is not a nought. Twelve checkable rules measured from packages/board and greatcto.systems, not designed for this file. Use when building or extending any great_cto surface — the board, the site, a report, a share page.

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。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that great_cto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).

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。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

anydesign

無料

Analyze images, websites, and Figma files to extract their design and generate a `design.md` with token system, component inventory, and reconstruction notes. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand, document, replicate, or audit the design of something visual: a screenshot, a URL, a Figma link, a Pinterest reference, a mockup, a competitor's site, a component, a dashboard, a landing page. Also when they ask 'extract the design system from X', 'document the style of Y', 'analyze this visually', 'convert this image into tokens', 'help me replicate this design', 'what palette does this site use', 'how is this built'. Also for single elements: 'copy this navbar', 'recreate this illustration', 'give me a prompt to regenerate this graphic' — element mode outputs a focused element.md, with token-grounded image-model prompts when the element is visual art. If the user brings any visual source and wants to understand it at a design level — this skill should activate.

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。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts.

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。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

Structured idea generation + multi-LLM debate for the product-owner stage. Diverge (generate genuinely different bets), debate (a 4-persona panel on 4 models argues over 2 rounds), converge (synthesize a recommendation). Used by product-owner before architect; available to architect for design-space exploration.

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。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

Run the great_cto controlled Codex lifecycle with controller-owned writes, verifier evidence, human gates and optional artifact release.

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。

avelikiy/great_cto1032026年10月12日 更新

avelikiy のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する