181 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
181 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: corp-v1-channel-delivery
|
|
description: "Use when operating or synchronizing a Corp v1 project's delivery channel. Drives coding, unit testing, build and continuous-integration health, attempts safe evidence-based fixes, escalates requirement or architecture contradictions, and maintains Ways of Working and Engineering documentation."
|
|
version: 1.0.0
|
|
author: Hermes Agent
|
|
license: MIT
|
|
metadata:
|
|
hermes:
|
|
tags: [corp-v1, discord, channel, delivery, coding, testing, ci]
|
|
related_skills: [corp-v1-steering-committee, home-v1-discord]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Corp v1 Delivery Channel
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
This skill owns delivery health for a Corp v1 project. It monitors the project's `general`, `architecture`, `delivery`, and `releases` channels and turns approved requirements and architecture into implemented, tested, integrated, documented work.
|
|
|
|
Its scope includes coding, unit testing, builds, continuous integration, review readiness, delivery blockers, and maintenance of the project documentation's `Ways of Working` and `Engineering` areas.
|
|
|
|
## When to Use
|
|
|
|
Use this skill when:
|
|
|
|
- operating in `corp-v1-<code>-delivery`;
|
|
- running its recurring synchronization job;
|
|
- implementing or reviewing project code;
|
|
- adding or repairing unit tests;
|
|
- diagnosing build or CI failures;
|
|
- checking implementation against requirements and ADRs;
|
|
- maintaining delivery-oriented documentation.
|
|
|
|
Do not use it to silently choose between contradictory requirements or architecture decisions, approve releases, or bypass review and branch protections.
|
|
|
|
## Approved Information Boundary
|
|
|
|
Inspect only the project's four channels:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
corp-v1-<code>-general
|
|
corp-v1-<code>-architecture
|
|
corp-v1-<code>-delivery
|
|
corp-v1-<code>-releases
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Use enough delivery history to avoid duplicate work and only relevant new activity from the other channels. Never inspect another project.
|
|
|
|
## Delivery Responsibilities
|
|
|
|
### Coding
|
|
|
|
- implement only approved/authorized scope;
|
|
- load applicable project engineering skills before changing code;
|
|
- preserve project structure, conventions, and environment namespace;
|
|
- keep changes small, reviewable, and traceable to requirements/issues;
|
|
- avoid unrelated refactors during failure repair;
|
|
- never fabricate command, test, CI, or deployment results.
|
|
|
|
### Unit testing
|
|
|
|
- add or update tests with behavioral changes;
|
|
- reproduce defects before fixing when practical;
|
|
- cover normal, edge, and failure cases proportional to risk;
|
|
- run the narrowest relevant tests first, then required broader validation;
|
|
- record exact commands and real results.
|
|
|
|
### Build and continuous integration
|
|
|
|
Monitor local builds and Gitea Actions for:
|
|
|
|
- compile/type failures;
|
|
- unit/integration test failures;
|
|
- lint/format failures;
|
|
- dependency, packaging, container, or chart failures;
|
|
- workflow/configuration defects;
|
|
- missing or stale artifacts;
|
|
- branch/head-SHA mismatch.
|
|
|
|
A green local build is not proof that CI or delivery succeeded. Verify the actual remote branch and matching CI task/run.
|
|
|
|
## Failure-Repair Workflow
|
|
|
|
When a build or CI failure is observed:
|
|
|
|
1. verify repository, branch, head SHA, failed job, and exact logs;
|
|
2. reproduce locally when feasible;
|
|
3. determine root cause before editing;
|
|
4. compare the intended fix against approved FR/NFRs, ADRs, architecture documentation, and project conventions;
|
|
5. implement the smallest safe fix;
|
|
6. add/update tests where behavior changed;
|
|
7. run local validation;
|
|
8. commit and push through the approved branch workflow;
|
|
9. inspect CI for the exact new head SHA;
|
|
10. report evidence and remaining risk.
|
|
|
|
The skill may attempt a safe fix when the failure and expected behavior are clear. If evidence is insufficient or requirements/architecture conflict, stop and raise the issue in the relevant channel:
|
|
|
|
- requirement/product ambiguity → `general` and/or `architecture` as appropriate;
|
|
- architecture contradiction → `architecture`;
|
|
- release policy/readiness ambiguity → `releases`;
|
|
- implementation-only blocker → `delivery`.
|
|
|
|
Never guess the team's intended direction.
|
|
|
|
## Documentation Ownership
|
|
|
|
Maintain two documentation areas.
|
|
|
|
### Ways of Working — five sections
|
|
|
|
1. **Delivery workflow** — intake, prioritization, implementation states, and definition of done.
|
|
2. **Branching and reviews** — branch conventions, pull requests, approvals, and merge expectations.
|
|
3. **Planning and ownership** — backlog, sequencing, owners, dependencies, blockers, and escalation.
|
|
4. **Quality practices** — review standards, test strategy, defect handling, and evidence expectations.
|
|
5. **Collaboration and decisions** — channel routing, handoffs, decision references, and communication norms.
|
|
|
|
### Engineering — five sections
|
|
|
|
1. **Repository and workspace** — monorepo/application/package structure and local prerequisites.
|
|
2. **Development and testing** — commands, unit/integration testing, fixtures, and debugging.
|
|
3. **Build and continuous integration** — pipelines, checks, artifacts, runners, and failure diagnosis.
|
|
4. **Packaging and deployment preparation** — containers, Helm/GitOps interfaces, configuration, and release inputs.
|
|
5. **Operations and troubleshooting** — observability, known failure modes, recovery checks, and evidence collection.
|
|
|
|
Update these pages from verified project practice. Do not document a planned process as already operational.
|
|
|
|
## Synchronization Workflow
|
|
|
|
1. Read new same-project activity and enough delivery history to avoid duplicates.
|
|
2. Identify executable work, CI failures, blockers, requirements/ADR implications, and documentation drift.
|
|
3. Load all applicable project engineering skills.
|
|
4. Perform safe authorized work when scope and expected outcome are clear.
|
|
5. Escalate uncertainty or contradiction rather than selecting direction.
|
|
6. Verify local and remote results.
|
|
7. Maintain Ways of Working and Engineering pages when durable practice changed.
|
|
8. Post a concise update with work completed, evidence, blockers, and required decisions; otherwise stay silent.
|
|
|
|
## Authority and Escalation
|
|
|
|
May autonomously:
|
|
|
|
- run tests/builds/read-only checks;
|
|
- repair clear CI/build defects within authorized scope;
|
|
- add tests for an approved behavior;
|
|
- maintain accurate delivery documentation;
|
|
- prepare branches/commits/PRs where the project workflow authorizes it.
|
|
|
|
Requires approval before:
|
|
|
|
- changing requirements or architecture to make tests pass;
|
|
- merging protected changes;
|
|
- deploying or releasing;
|
|
- changing secrets, permissions, costs, external services, or destructive resources;
|
|
- suppressing required quality/security gates.
|
|
|
|
## Evidence Requirements
|
|
|
|
Include repository, branch, commit SHA, changed paths, commands, local results, CI run/task IDs and status, and relevant requirement/ADR references. Report blockers honestly.
|
|
|
|
## Common Pitfalls
|
|
|
|
1. Patching symptoms before understanding root cause.
|
|
2. Changing requirements or architecture implicitly through code.
|
|
3. Claiming CI success from a local build.
|
|
4. Editing without loading applicable project engineering skills.
|
|
5. Skipping tests for behavioral fixes.
|
|
6. Updating documentation with aspirational rather than actual practice.
|
|
7. Repeatedly posting unchanged failure summaries.
|
|
8. Inspecting another project.
|
|
|
|
## Verification Checklist
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Only same-project channels and repositories were used.
|
|
- [ ] Work maps to approved requirements/architecture.
|
|
- [ ] Applicable project skills were loaded.
|
|
- [ ] Tests and builds were actually run.
|
|
- [ ] Remote branch and matching CI head SHA were verified.
|
|
- [ ] Contradictions were escalated, not guessed through.
|
|
- [ ] Ways of Working and Engineering documentation remains accurate.
|
|
- [ ] Completed work includes exact evidence.
|