SkillCoding & development
Trace a request through a codebase
Follow one request from entry point to storage or external boundary with concrete file references.
✳Claude Code
MIT · FreeView skill
Use when a coding task should be driven end-to-end from issue intake through implementation, review, deployment, and acceptance verification with minimal human re-intervention.
---
name: acceptance-orchestrator
description: Use when a coding task should be driven end-to-end from issue intake through implementation, review, deployment, and acceptance verification with minimal human re-intervention.
risk: critical
source: community
date_added: "2026-03-12"
---
# Acceptance Orchestrator
## Overview
Orchestrate coding work as a state machine that ends only when acceptance criteria are verified with evidence or the task is explicitly escalated.
Core rule: **do not optimize for "code changed"; optimize for "DoD proven".**
## When to Use
- The task already has an issue or clear acceptance criteria and should run end-to-end with minimal human re-intervention.
- You need structured handoff across implementation, review, deployment, and final verification.
- You want explicit stop conditions and escalation instead of silent partial completion.
## Required Sub-Skills
- `create-issue-gate`
- `closed-loop-delivery`
- `verification-before-completion`
Deployment and PR monitoring are project-specific capabilities, not bundled sub-skills.
Use the repository's actual deployment and review procedures; the legacy names
`deploy-dev`, `pr-watch`, `pr-review-autopilot`, and `git-ship` are not available in AAS.
## Inputs
Require these inputs:
- issue id or issue body
- issue status
- acceptance criteria (DoD)
- target environment (`dev` default)
Fixed defaults:
- max iteration rounds = `2`
- PR review polling = `3m -> 6m -> 10m`
## State Machine
- `intake`
- `issue-gated`
- `executing`
- `review-loop`
- `deploy-verify`
- `accepted`
- `escalated`
## Workflow
1. **Intake**
- Read issue and extract task goal + DoD.
2. **Issue gate**
- Use `create-issue-gate` logic.
- If issue is not `ready` or execution gate is not `allowed`, stop immediately.
- Do not implement anything while issue remains `draft`.
3. **Execute**
- Hand off to `closed-loop-delivery` for implementation and local verification.
4. **Review loop**
- If PR feedback is relevant, batch polling windows as:
- wait `3m`
- then `6m`
- then `10m`
- After the `10m` round, stop waiting and process all visible comments together.
5. **Deploy and runtime verification**
- If DoD depends on runtime behavior, verify the explicitly authorized environment.
- A `dev` label does not grant deployment permission; inspect effects and use the project's deployment gate before changing any shared environment.
- Verify with real logs/API/Lambda behavior, not assumptions.
6. **Completion gate**
- Before any claim of completion, require `verification-before-completion`.
- No success claim without fresh evidence.
## Stop Conditions
Move to `accepted` only when every acceptance criterion has matching evidence.
Move to `escalated` when any of these happen:
- DoD still fails after `2` full rounds
- missing secrets/permissions/external dependency blocks progress
- task needs production action or destructive operation approval
- review instructions conflict and cannot both be satisfied
## Human Gates
Always stop for human confirmation on:
- prod/stage deploys beyond agreed scope
- destructive git/data operations
- billing or security posture changes
- missing user-provided acceptance criteria
## Output Contract
When reporting status, always include:
- `Status`: intake / executing / accepted / escalated
- `Acceptance Criteria`: pass/fail checklist
- `Evidence`: commands, logs, API results, or runtime proof
- `Open Risks`: anything still uncertain
- `Need Human Input`: smallest next decision, if blocked
Do not report "done" unless status is `accepted`.
## Example
**User request:**
> Take this issue and its acceptance criteria through implementation, validation, review, and a final evidence-backed verdict.
## Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
---
name: acceptance-orchestrator
description: Use when a coding task should be driven end-to-end from issue intake through implementation, review, deployment, and acceptance verification with minimal human re-intervention.
risk: critical
source: community
date_added: "2026-03-12"
---
# Acceptance Orchestrator
## Overview
Orchestrate coding work as a state machine that ends only when acceptance criteria are verified with evidence or the task is explicitly escalated.
Core rule: **do not optimize for "code changed"; optimize for "DoD proven".**
## When to Use
- The task already has an issue or clear acceptance criteria and should run end-to-end with minimal human re-intervention.
- You need structured handoff across implementation, review, deployment, and final verification.
- You want explicit stop conditions and escalation instead of silent partial completion.
## Required Sub-Skills
- `create-issue-gate`
- `closed-loop-delivery`
- `verification-before-completion`
Deployment and PR monitoring are project-specific capabilities, not bundled sub-skills.
Use the repository's actual deployment and review procedures; the legacy names
`deploy-dev`, `pr-watch`, `pr-review-autopilot`, and `git-ship` are not available in AAS.
## Inputs
Require these inputs:
- issue id or issue body
- issue status
- acceptance criteria (DoD)
- target environment (`dev` default)
Fixed defaults:
- max iteration rounds = `2`
- PR review polling = `3m -> 6m -> 10m`
## State Machine
- `intake`
- `issue-gated`
- `executing`
- `review-loop`
- `deploy-verify`
- `accepted`
- `escalated`
## Workflow
1. **Intake**
- Read issue and extract task goal + DoD.
2. **Issue gate**
- Use `create-issue-gate` logic.
- If issue is not `ready` or execution gate is not `allowed`, stop immediately.
- Do not implement anything while issue remains `draft`.
3. **Execute**
- Hand off to `closed-loop-delivery` for implementation and local verification.
4. **Review loop**
- If PR feedback is relevant, batch polling windows as:
- wait `3m`
- then `6m`
- then `10m`
- After the `10m` round, stop waiting and process all visible comments together.
5. **Deploy and runtime verification**
- If DoD depends on runtime behavior, verify the explicitly authorized environment.
- A `dev` label does not grant deployment permission; inspect effects and use the project's deployment gate before changing any shared environment.
- Verify with real logs/API/Lambda behavior, not assumptions.
6. **Completion gate**
- Before any claim of completion, require `verification-before-completion`.
- No success claim without fresh evidence.
## Stop Conditions
Move to `accepted` only when every acceptance criterion has matching evidence.
Move to `escalated` when any of these happen:
- DoD still fails after `2` full rounds
- missing secrets/permissions/external dependency blocks progress
- task needs production action or destructive operation approval
- review instructions conflict and cannot both be satisfied
## Human Gates
Always stop for human confirmation on:
- prod/stage deploys beyond agreed scope
- destructive git/data operations
- billing or security posture changes
- missing user-provided acceptance criteria
## Output Contract
When reporting status, always include:
- `Status`: intake / executing / accepted / escalated
- `Acceptance Criteria`: pass/fail checklist
- `Evidence`: commands, logs, API results, or runtime proof
- `Open Risks`: anything still uncertain
- `Need Human Input`: smallest next decision, if blocked
Do not report "done" unless status is `accepted`.
## Example
**User request:**
> Take this issue and its acceptance criteria through implementation, validation, review, and a final evidence-backed verdict.
## Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
Imported SKILL.md format for Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Review the complete instructions and required tools before use. Package integrity checked; individual agent behavior has not been tested.