olliecrow/yeet

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.
• 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).

Prerequisites

• Require GitHub CLI gh. Check gh --version. If missing, attempt a non-interactive install path available on the host (for example brew, apt, or existing repo bootstrap scripts), then re-check. Ask the user only if installation remains blocked.
• Require authenticated gh session. Run gh auth status. If unauthenticated, attempt token-based auth via GH_TOKEN/GITHUB_TOKEN when available, then re-check. Ask the user to run gh auth login only if auth remains blocked.

Naming conventions

• Branch: olliecrow/{description} when starting from main/master/default.
• Commit: {description} (terse).
• PR title: {description} summarizing the full diff.

Workflow

• If on main/master/default, create a branch: git checkout -b "olliecrow/{description}"
• Otherwise stay on the current branch.
• Confirm status, then stage everything: git status -sb then git add -A.
• Run pre-commit checks, tests, and CI checks before committing.
  • If pre-commit config exists, run it.
  • Run the smallest relevant test targets; all tests must pass.
  • Run CI checks or local equivalents; if CI can only run remotely, trigger it and wait for success before proceeding.
  • If checks fail due to missing deps/tools, install dependencies and rerun once.
• Commit tersely with the description: git commit -m "{description}"
• Push with tracking: git push -u origin $(git branch --show-current)
• If git push fails due to workflow auth errors, refresh from the tracked upstream (or the detected mainline branch) and retry the push once.
• If the branch has no active PR, open one in ready-for-review state: GH_PROMPT_DISABLED=1 GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0 gh pr create --fill --head $(git branch --show-current).
• If the branch already has an active PR, do not create a duplicate; edit the existing PR instead.
• If the active PR is draft, promote it before finishing: GH_PROMPT_DISABLED=1 GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0 gh pr ready $(git branch --show-current).
• Write the PR description to a temp file with real newlines (e.g. pr-body.md ... EOF) and run pr-body.md to avoid \n-escaped markdown.
• Sanitize PR metadata before gh pr create/gh pr edit: use repo-relative paths or plain-language references only, and never include absolute local filesystem paths, local file URLs, or pasted raw terminal transcripts.
• PR description (markdown) must be detailed prose covering the issue, the cause and effect on users, the root cause, the fix, and any tests or checks used to validate.
• At the end, always compare the active PR title/body to the final branch delta and update stale metadata with gh pr edit.
• Do not attempt to approve your own PR. If the authenticated GitHub user is the PR author, treat self-approval as not-applicable and leave approval for another reviewer.