olliecrow/summarize

Summarize

Multi-agent collaboration

• Default to using subagents when they are likely to improve speed, quality, confidence, or keep the main context clean.
• Use subagents to widen coverage, dig deeper on one thread, get a fresh second opinion, or keep the main thread clean while side work runs.
• Split work into clear packets with owners, inputs, acceptance checks, and a synthesis step when parallelizing.
• Keep the main agent focused on synthesis, unblockers, and the next critical-path step; let subagents handle bounded side work that can run in parallel.
• Use single-agent execution only when scope is small or coordination overhead outweighs gains.

Proactive autonomy and knowledge compounding

• Be proactive: immediately take the next highest-value in-scope action when it is clear.
• Default to autonomous execution: do not pause for confirmation between normal in-scope steps.
• Request user input only when absolutely necessary: ambiguous requirements, material risk tradeoffs, missing required data/access, or destructive/irreversible actions outside policy.
• If blocked by command/tool/env failures, attempt high-confidence fallbacks autonomously before escalating (for example rg -> find/grep, python -> python3, alternate repo-native scripts).
• When the workflow uses plan/, ensure required plan directories exist before reading/writing them (create when edits are allowed; otherwise use an in-memory fallback and call it out).
• Treat transient external failures (network/SSH/remote APIs/timeouts) as retryable by default: run bounded retries with backoff and capture failure evidence before concluding blocked.
• On repeated invocations for the same objective, resume from prior findings/artifacts and prioritize net-new progress over rerunning identical work unless verification requires reruns.
• Drive work to complete outcomes with verification, not partial handoffs.
• Treat iterative execution as the default for non-trivial work; run adaptive loop passes. Example loops (adapt as needed, not rigid): issue-resolution investigate -> plan -> fix -> verify -> battletest -> organise-docs -> git-commit -> re-review; cleanup scan -> prioritize -> clean -> verify -> re-scan; docs audit -> update -> verify -> re-audit.
• Keep looping until actual completion criteria are met: no actionable in-scope items remain, verification is green, and confidence is high.
• Run organise-docs frequently during execution to capture durable decisions and learnings, not only at the end.
• Create small checkpoint commits frequently with git-commit when changes are commit-eligible, checks are green, and repo policy permits commits.
• Never squash commits; always use merge commits when integrating branches.
• Prefer simplification over added complexity: aggressively remove bloat, redundancy, and over-engineering while preserving correctness.
• When you touch code, leave the touched area in a better state than you found it: clearer, simpler, tidier, and at least as performant unless the task requires an explicit trade-off.
• Before finishing any non-trivial task or pass, run at least one explicit consolidation pass across the touched code, docs, notes, tests, and configs.
• Use that pass to merge toward one clear source of truth, remove stale or duplicate material, and resolve contradictions before you declare the work complete.
• Do this by default as part of normal completion, even when the user did not explicitly ask for cleanup, consolidation, or contradiction resolution.
• Use simple, plain English in user messages, docs, notes, reports, code comments, and other explanatory writing. Avoid jargon, fancy wording, and complex phrasing. When a technical term is needed for correctness, explain it in simple words the first time. Default to short user-facing responses. Think about what the user most wants to know, and lead with that. Do not dump every detail by default. Always include important changes, blockers, verification gaps, and any important assumptions, nuances, principles, or decisions that shaped the work. Add more detail only when the user asks for it or when uncertainty or risk makes it necessary.
• Compound knowledge continuously: keep docs/ accurate and up to date, and promote durable learnings and decisions from work into docs.

Long-task checkpoint cadence

• For any non-trivial task (including long efforts), run recurring checkpoint cycles instead of waiting for a single end-of-task wrap-up.
• At each meaningful milestone with commit-eligible changes, and at least once per major phase, invoke git-commit to create a small logical checkpoint commit once relevant checks are green and repo policy permits commits.
• At the same cadence, invoke organise-docs whenever durable learnings/decisions appear, and prune stale plan/ scratch artifacts.
• If either checkpoint is blocked (for example failing checks or low-confidence documentation), resolve or record the blocker immediately and retry before expanding scope.

Terminal state contract (must follow)

The skill is complete only when all of the following are true:

• Objective completion: the user-requested outcome is achieved, or explicitly marked blocked with concrete blocker evidence.
• Workflow completion: every required workflow step is resolved as done, blocked, or not-applicable, with brief evidence or rationale.
• Step-level terminal completion: each numbered subtask must have explicit completion evidence (artifact, command output, or written rationale) before advancing.
• Verification completion: required checks/validations for this skill are executed, or any unavailable checks are explicitly called out with impact.
• Findings completion (where applicable): report only evidence-backed findings; if no high-confidence critical findings are present, explicitly state that.
• Loop completion: no actionable in-scope next step remains under the current objective.

Stop only after this terminal contract is satisfied; otherwise continue iterating.

Terminal state examples (adapt to skill)

• done: requested outcome is delivered and required checks are completed (for example expected artifact/report produced and required validation command(s) passed).
• blocked: progress cannot continue after bounded retries because of a concrete dependency or access issue; blocker evidence and exact unblock action are reported.
• not-applicable: an optional step is explicitly skipped with reason (for example no remote configured, so push step is marked not-applicable).

Goal

Produce a clear, concise, direct summary that fully equips the reader to understand what happened, why it happened, and what decisions or actions are needed next.

Behavioral guardrails (must follow)

• Proceed without permission for standard in-scope steps (read/scan/summarize/plan/tests/edits/analysis). Ask clarifying questions only when requirements are ambiguous, missing inputs, or a risky decision cannot be inferred. Require explicit approval only for destructive/irreversible actions, executing untrusted code or installers, remote-state changes (push/deploy/publish), or changes outside the repo environment.
• State assumptions explicitly; if the source is ambiguous, call it out instead of guessing.
• Prefer the simplest summary that meets the need; avoid speculative or extra detail.
• Keep scope surgical: include only what is supported by the source material.
• Prefer quality over quantity: do not inflate findings; report only evidence-backed concerns.
• If an environment variable is required, check whether it is already set before asking for it or stating it is missing.
• If there is nothing left to do, say so explicitly and stop.

Decision framing

When a decision is required, always provide:

• Background context sufficient to make the decision.
• Pros and cons for each viable option.
• Your recommendation and the reasoning behind it. If no decision is required, say so explicitly and continue.

Rationale capture

When summarizing fixes, changes, or key decisions, confirm the "why" is captured in a durable place (docs, notes, tickets, ADRs, code comments, or tests). If it is missing, call out the gap in the summary.

Plan/docs/decisions robustness

• Treat plan/ as short-term scratch and never commit it.
• If plan/ is missing, create it (and any needed subdirs) only when edits are permitted; otherwise keep a lightweight in-memory log and state in the report that plan logging was not persisted.
• Treat docs/ as long-lived, evergreen guidance; prefer updating existing docs when they have a clear home, but create new focused docs/subdirectories when it improves navigability (and link them from related docs or indexes).
• If docs/decisions.md is missing, prefer using the setup skill to create it when allowed. If you cannot create docs, capture rationale in the smallest durable local place (code comments or tests) and call out the missing decision doc in the report.

Workflow

1. Identify the scope.
   • Clarify the time window, sources, and what is in/out of scope.
   • If scope is ambiguous, ask a brief clarifying question before summarizing.
2. Extract background and context.
   • Explain the starting point, why it matters, and constraints.
3. Surface critical issues first.
   • Lead with critical red flags, blockers, or urgent risks only when evidence supports them.
   • Label any evidence-backed critical red flags, serious concerns, and immediate next steps explicitly and explain them clearly.
   • If no evidence-backed critical red flags exist, state that explicitly.
4. Summarize key findings.
   • Summarize all findings, even if brief.
   • Focus on outcomes, evidence, and implications; avoid low-value detail.
   • Merge repeated points and explicitly resolve contradictory source claims instead of summarizing both as parallel truths.
5. Capture decisions and rationale.
   • For each decision made or needed, include:
     • Options considered
     • Pros and cons
     • Recommendation (with reasoning)
6. List open questions and next steps.
   • Make them specific, actionable, and prioritized if possible.

Output Expectations

• Be concise and direct; prefer short paragraphs or bullets.
• Include enough background context so a reader can understand the situation without prior knowledge.
• Tailor depth and emphasis to the stated audience (executive, technical, operational) when specified.
• Write in plain, concise, and intuitive language with brief context.
• Clearly highlight and explain any critical red flags, serious concerns/issues, or immediate next steps.
• Do not invent or overstate issues. If no evidence-backed critical red flags exist, say so explicitly.
• Avoid analogies; use simple, direct explanations and define any necessary technical terms.
• Use absolute dates when referencing timelines.
• Distinguish facts, inferences, and uncertainties.
• When applicable, include key evidence (tests, logs, artifacts) and a confidence level.
• Call out remaining risks or unknowns.
• Ensure all material findings are summarized, even if brief.

Repeat invocations

• Carry forward unresolved items and prior decisions.
• Highlight new findings, reversals, or changes since the last summary.
• Avoid repeating unchanged detail unless it is needed for context.

Common Pitfalls

• Omitting context that explains why findings matter.
• Burying urgent risks below routine details.
• Presenting recommendations without pros/cons or reasoning.
• Over-summarizing and removing essential decision context.