本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

saas-milestone-review

Milestone progress review — completeness, quality metrics, risk, go/no-go recommendation. At checkpoints or before a deadline.

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。

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md11.4 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。

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys locale,review_mode,automation,workflow

Resolved above — use as-is; --review overrides review_mode for this run. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

Milestone Review

Interaction Localization Rule: When locale: pt-BR (or user speaks Portuguese), ALL questions (AskUserQuestion / ask_question), confirmation prompts, and selectable options MUST be translated and presented in Brazilian Portuguese (PT-BR). Any English question text or options in this skill are illustrative examples — NEVER display English questions or options to a Portuguese developer. Internal reasoning, code synthesis, tests, and documentation files MUST remain in English.

Insufficient input — check this before producing any report

If the inputs this skill needs do not exist, the answer is "could not run" — not a filled-in report. Check first, and stop if the check fails.

  1. List the inputs this skill reads (data files, prior reports, profiler output, test results, registries, source code).
  2. For each, record FOUND or ABSENT — not "assumed present".
  3. If any input required for a section is ABSENT, that section is NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA. Do not estimate it, do not infer it from an adjacent artifact, and do not leave a mandated cell to be filled by whoever reads the template next.
  4. If every required input is ABSENT, stop and report NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA as the whole verdict, naming what was missing and which skill produces it.

A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success. It is the correct, useful answer to "what does the data say?" when there is no data. The failure mode this prevents is specific: a report whose verdict enum has no "could not run" state produces false clean passes — an asset audit returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets and no standards, or a performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget" with zero profiler data and no budget ever set.

Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. A scan that finds no matches because there are no files to scan has not verified anything. Say which of the two happened — a reader cannot tell from a green result.


Phase 0: Parse Arguments

Extract the milestone name (current or a specific name).

See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern. Individual gate definitions live in .claude/docs/director-gates/[gate-id].md — the spawned agent reads its own gate file; do not read it in the parent session.

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).


Phase 1: Load Milestone Data

Read the milestone definition from production/milestones/ if it exists. If the argument is current, use the most recently modified milestone file.

No skill writes production/milestones/ — definitions are authored by hand from .claude/docs/templates/milestone-definition.md, so most projects have none. When the directory is absent or empty, say so and review against the sprint reports alone; do not fabricate a definition. Take care with current: this skill writes its own output as [milestone-name]-review.md, so a most-recently-modified match can be a previous review rather than a definition. Skip files ending -review.md when selecting.

Gather the sprint reports for sprints within this milestone from production/sprints/. Establish the denominator (glob them, count N), then scan the sections a milestone review actually aggregates rather than reading each report whole:

Grep pattern="^## (Sprint Goal|Capacity|Tasks|Carryover|Risks|Progress|Burndown Assessment|Emerging Risks|Definition of Done)" glob="production/sprints/sprint-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 12

These alternates are the headings /saas-sprint-plan emits (## Sprint Goal, not ## Goal) — not what a milestone review might expect. A pattern that matches only one real heading still returns a non-zero count, so the zero-match escape hatch below never fires and the review aggregates a fraction of each report while reporting full coverage.

Full-read a single sprint report when its scanned sections point outside themselves, or when it matched nothing — a zero-match report predates the template and must be read, never silently dropped from the milestone's history. Report any sprint that contributed nothing: a milestone summary that quietly omits a sprint understates the work and the slippage both.

Blocked stories — the Blocked table and the blocked story count passed to PR-MILESTONE — are not in the sprint reports' scanned sections. Read them where they are recorded: the status: blocked stories in production/sprint-status.yaml (with their blocker field) and, for stories outside that sprint, one grep:

Grep pattern="^> \*\*Status\*\*: Blocked|BLOCKED:" glob="production/epics/**/story-*.md" output_mode="content"

Each blocked story goes in the Blocked table under the feature its epic folder implements, with its blocker (the yaml blocker field or the story's BLOCKED: note). With no story files and no sprint-status.yaml, the Blocked table and the blocked story count are NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA, not zero.


Phase 2: Scan Codebase Health

  • Scan for TODO, FIXME, HACK markers that indicate incomplete work
  • Count open bugs by severity for Quality Metrics from production/qa/bugs/ (one grep of the **Severity** and **Status** lines, as /saas-bug-triage does); with no bug files, the bug lines are NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA, not zero
  • Check the risk register at production/risk-register/ if it exists (hand-authored from .claude/docs/templates/risk-register-entry.md; no skill writes it, so absence is normal — note it rather than skipping risk assessment silently)

Phase 3: Generate the Milestone Review

# Milestone Review: [Milestone Name]

## Overview
- **Target Date**: [Date]
- **Current Date**: [Today]
- **Days Remaining**: [N]
- **Sprints Completed**: [X/Y]

## Feature Completeness

### Fully Complete
Only a feature whose Status is `Complete` goes here or counts toward the completion percentage; a Deferred feature stays in its denominator, named with the milestone it moved to.

| Feature | Acceptance Criteria | Test Status |
|---------|-------------------|-------------|

### Partially Complete
| Feature | % Done | Remaining Work | Risk to Milestone |
|---------|--------|---------------|------------------|

### Blocked
A started feature whose stories are Blocked goes here, not under Partially
Complete — name the blocker, so the review says why it stalled, not only that
the count moved.

| Feature | Blocked Stories | Blocker | Next Action / Owner |
|---------|----------------|---------|---------------------|

### Not Started
| Feature | Priority | Can Cut? | Impact of Cutting |
|---------|----------|----------|------------------|

## Quality Metrics
- **Open S1 Bugs**: [N] -- [List]
- **Open S2 Bugs**: [N]
- **Open S3 Bugs**: [N]
- **Test Coverage**: [X%]
- **Performance**: [Within budget? Details]

## Code Health
- **TODO count**: [N across codebase]
- **FIXME count**: [N]
- **HACK count**: [N]
- **Technical debt items**: [List critical ones]

## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Status | Impact if Realized | Mitigation Status |
|------|--------|-------------------|------------------|

## Velocity Analysis
- **Planned vs Completed** (across all sprints): [X/Y tasks = Z%]
- **Trend**: [Improving / Stable / Declining]
- **Adjusted estimate for remaining work**: [Days needed at current velocity]

## Scope Recommendations
### Protect (Must ship with milestone)
- [Feature and why]

### At Risk (May need to cut or simplify)
- [Feature and risk]

### Cut Candidates (Can defer without compromising milestone)
- [Feature and impact of cutting]

## Go/No-Go Assessment

**Recommendation**: [NOT ASSESSED / GO / CONDITIONAL GO / NO-GO]

**Conditions** (if conditional):
- [Condition 1 that must be met]
- [Condition 2 that must be met]

**Rationale**: [Explanation of the recommendation]

## Action Items
| # | Action | Owner | Deadline |
|---|--------|-------|----------|

Phase 3b: Producer Risk Assessment

Review mode check — apply before spawning PR-MILESTONE:

  • solo → skip. Note: "PR-MILESTONE skipped — Solo mode." Present the Go/No-Go section without a delivery-producer verdict.
  • lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-MILESTONE skipped — Lean mode." Present the Go/No-Go section without a delivery-producer verdict.
  • full → spawn as normal.

Before generating the Go/No-Go recommendation, spawn delivery-producer via Agent using gate PR-MILESTONE (.claude/docs/director-gates/pr-milestone.md).

Pass: milestone name and target date, current completion percentage, blocked story count, velocity data from sprint reports (if available), list of cut candidates.

Present the delivery-producer's assessment inline within the Go/No-Go section. The delivery-producer's verdict (ON TRACK / AT RISK / OFF TRACK) informs the overall recommendation.

If OFF TRACK, use AskUserQuestion before generating the recommendation:

  • Prompt: "Producer verdict: OFF TRACK. The milestone is in jeopardy. This review will recommend NO-GO. How do you want to proceed?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Accept NO-GO — generate the full review with that recommendation
    • [B] Override to CONDITIONAL GO — I'll document the accepted risks myself
    • [C] Stop — I want to address blockers before generating the review

If AT RISK, use AskUserQuestion:

  • Prompt: "Producer verdict: AT RISK. Milestone may slip. How should the Go/No-Go section be framed?"
  • Options:
    • [A] CONDITIONAL GO — include delivery-producer's conditions in the review
    • [B] NO-GO — conditions cannot be met in time
    • [C] GO — I accept the risk and want to proceed

If NOT ASSESSED: name the missing input — it is not ON TRACK, and never recommend GO on it. Supply the input and re-run PR-MILESTONE, or recommend NOT ASSESSED — or CONDITIONAL GO / NO-GO where the review's own findings call for one (the rank in .claude/docs/director-gates.md).

Do not issue a GO against an OFF TRACK verdict; issue CONDITIONAL GO only if the user explicitly selects [B] above.


Phase 4: Save Review

Present the review to the user.

Ask: "May I write this to production/milestones/[milestone-name]-review.md?"

If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: COMPLETE — milestone review saved.

If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.


Phase 5: Next Steps

  • Run /saas-gate-check for a formal phase gate verdict if this milestone marks a development phase boundary.
  • Run /saas-sprint-plan to adjust the next sprint based on the scope recommendations above (at workflow: minimal, which has no sprints, adjust the brief's build order instead).

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。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Turn your AI session into an autonomous SaaS and software engineering studio with 49 specialized agents, 74 workflow skills (/saas-*), 28 director gates, and complete architecture across Next.js, FastAPI, Supabase, Tailwind, and Stripe.

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。

Basinfy/Basinfy-SaaS-Studio22026年10月22日 更新

Brownfield audit — do existing artifacts actually work? Numbered migration plan. Unlike /saas-project-stage-detect, checks compliance not existence.

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。

Basinfy/Basinfy-SaaS-Studio22026年10月22日 更新

Create an ADR documenting a technical decision: context, alternatives considered, consequences.

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。

Basinfy/Basinfy-SaaS-Studio22026年10月22日 更新

Traceability matrix mapping PRD requirements to ADRs. Finds gaps, cross-ADR conflicts, stack compatibility. PASS/CONCERNS/NOT ASSESSED/FAIL.

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。

Basinfy/Basinfy-SaaS-Studio22026年10月22日 更新

Audit assets against naming conventions, file size budgets, format standards. Finds orphaned assets, missing references.

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。

Basinfy/Basinfy-SaaS-Studio22026年10月22日 更新

Author per-asset visual specs, SVG dimensions, and generation prompts from PRDs and design tokens. After design tokens.

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。

Basinfy/Basinfy-SaaS-Studio22026年10月22日 更新

Basinfy のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する