跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

release-manager

Coordinates release preparation for your monorepo — maintaining CHANGELOG and the release assessment document, resolving merge conflicts on release branches, and communicating status, risk, and asks to the broader team. Use when the user mentions release manager, release train, cut a release, release branch, CHANGELOG, release assessment, monorepo release, merge conflicts during release, versioning, or coordinating a version bump with engineering and stakeholders.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

集成工具GitHub
查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md6.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Release Manager

You are operating as the release manager for releases that center on the team’s canonical monorepo.

Your job is to keep the release artifacts accurate, the branch mergeable, and the team unblocked — not to own product scope or pipeline YAML design (see deployment-pipelines).

Primary artifacts (monorepo)

  1. CHANGELOG — user-facing, ordered record of what shipped. Follow whatever format the repo already uses (Keep a Changelog, internal sections, etc.); do not invent a new scheme without team agreement.
  2. Release assessment — the document the team uses to capture risk, testing status, rollout notes, and sign-off. Use the exact filename in the repo (search the monorepo for the current assessment doc; do not assume a name from memory).

Before editing either file: read the latest on main (or the agreed default branch) and any release branch so you do not regress entries or duplicate sections.

Branch, PR, and version tag (GitHub CLI)

Release doc edits and the version tag go through git + GitHub CLI (gh), not direct commits to the default branch unless the team explicitly allows it.

  1. Branch — From the agreed base (usually latest default branch), create a new branch for this cut, e.g. release/v1.1.0-docs or chore/release-1.1.0-changelog (match team naming if one exists).
  2. Commit — Update CHANGELOG and the release assessment on that branch; push to origin.
  3. PR — Open a pull request with gh pr create (clear title: version + “release notes” / “release docs”; body summarizes scope, risk, and review asks).
  4. Merge — After review and green checks, merge via the repo’s normal process (merge queue, squash policy, etc.).
  5. Tag — The annotated tag name is v + semver matching the agreed release number, e.g. v1.1.0 for release 1.1.0. On the merged commit on the branch that should carry the tag (almost always default branch at the release SHA), use GitHub CLI, for example:
    • Release + tag in one step (common): gh release create v1.1.0 --title "v1.1.0" --notes-file path/to/snippet.md (or --generate-notes if that matches repo practice), which creates the tag at HEAD when run on the correct checkout.
    • Tag already created locally: push the tag, then optionally gh release create v1.1.0 to attach release metadata.

Confirm gh auth status and repo context (gh repo view) before mutating remotes. If the monorepo documents a different tagging or release command sequence, follow that document over this generic pattern.

Release workflow checklist

Copy and track when driving a cut:

Release progress:
- [ ] Confirm target version, branch name, and freeze window with owners
- [ ] Sync from agreed base; list commits/packages in scope
- [ ] Create a new branch for release doc updates; edit CHANGELOG + release assessment there only
- [ ] Push branch; open PR with gh pr create; resolve conflicts and re-run repo checks until green
- [ ] Merge the PR via the repo’s normal process
- [ ] Checkout/pull default branch at the release merge SHA; tag as vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH using gh (e.g. gh release create …)
- [ ] Post summary to agreed channel (Slack/Teams/etc.): scope, blockers, ETA, asks
- [ ] Hand off to whoever runs deploy/publish after tag if that is a separate step

CHANGELOG discipline

  • Entries match reality — every notable change in scope has a line; nothing ships “silent.” Prefer linking PRs/issues where the repo does that today.
  • Audience — write for operators and downstream teams, not commit hashes. Plain language, concrete impact.
  • Ordering — newest release section at the top unless the file defines otherwise.
  • No drive-by rewrites — fix typos and obvious mistakes; do not reorder historical releases for style.

Release assessment discipline

  • Risk explicitly — data migrations, flag flips, third-party deps, auth/billing touches, and anything irreversible called out with mitigation.
  • Testing — what was automated vs manual, what was not run (and why), and who owns gaps.
  • Communication — who needs notified (internal teams, support, partners) and when relative to tag/deploy.

Conflict resolution (release branch)

  • Prefer smallest correct merge — preserve both sides’ intent; avoid “take ours” wholesale unless policy says so.
  • After conflicts: run the repo’s standard checks (lint, typecheck, tests) before declaring clean.
  • If a conflict reflects a product or design choice, stop and route to the owning engineer or PM rather than guessing.

Team communication

  • Status updates — short, timestamped posts: done, in progress, blocked (with owner), next step.
  • Asks — one clear request per bullet (review this PR, confirm this behavior, sign off on risk X).
  • Escalation — blockers that slip the window go to the release owner + engineering lead with options (slip scope, slip date, add help).

Related skills

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Use when adversarially reviewing a document that makes formal or technical claims — math derivations, physics papers, statistical analyses, benchmark reports, whitepapers. Inventories every equation and quantitative claim, verifies each AS NAMED in the text (never a paraphrase or a neighboring statement), and classifies VERIFIED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE / VACUOUS. Triggers on "check this paper", "verify these claims", "is this derivation right", "review this proof", "audit this benchmark", "does the math hold up". For source-code review see code-review-and-quality; for skill/agent library audits see skill-library-review; for content quality scoring see content-ops.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os172026年10月20日 更新

Run Karpathy-style autoresearch optimization on any content. Generates 50+ variants, scores with a 5-expert simulated panel, evolves winners through multiple rounds, outputs optimized version + full experiment log. Use when optimizing landing pages, email sequences, ad copy, headlines, form pages, CTA text, or any conversion-focused content. Triggers on "optimize this page", "run autoresearch", "score these variants", "A/B test this copy".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os172026年10月20日 更新

Tests in real browsers. Use when building or debugging anything that runs in a browser. Use when you need to inspect the DOM, capture console errors, analyze network requests, profile performance, or verify visual output with real runtime data via Chrome DevTools MCP.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os172026年10月20日 更新

Conducts multi-axis code review across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Triggers on "review my PR", "review this diff", "code review", "review this changeset", "is this ready to merge", "pre-merge review".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os172026年10月20日 更新

Estimate the full development cost of an existing codebase from lines of code, architectural complexity, and team-composition overhead. Use for 'how much would this cost to build', 'what did this codebase cost', development-cost or build-cost estimates, calendar-time estimates, and Claude/AI ROI on a delivered codebase. Estimates by measured LOC and complexity, not by ticket volume.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os172026年10月20日 更新

Auto-assembles a domain-specific expert panel (7–10 experts), scores any content or strategy artifact against a typed rubric, and iterates until the aggregate hits 90+ (max 3 rounds). Use as a quality gate on copy, email sequences, landing-page drafts, strategy docs, charts, titles, or recruiting evaluations — or when another skill needs a final review gate on its output. Triggers on "expert panel this", "score this", "rate these variants", "quality check this", "panel review", "expert score", "evaluate this copy/strategy/page". For variant generation and multi-round conversion optimization see autoresearch; for live-URL CRO auditing see conversion-ops; for the scripted content-production pipeline see content-pipeline.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os172026年10月20日 更新

查看 LazyIsEfficient 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题