deliver
Deliver an accepted spec autonomously, from failing acceptance tests to a pull request with green checks.
Skill by taecontrol
Chalk Labs
Need help deploying deliver?
Chalk Labs sets up agents like this inside real teams: connected to your tools, tested on your data, with a human in the loop where it matters.
Install
Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.
npx agentmarket install skill/taecontrol-deliver
Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.
Get the weekly diff
The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.
About
Reviews
Write a reviewNo reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work
Permissions
What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md and code. Checked Nov 1, 2026.
- Tools
- No tools found
- Secrets
- None asked for
- Install scripts
- None found
Network hosts it talks to 1
codeload.github.com· found in install command
Files it touches
~/.claude/skills/deliver
What's inside
- Skill name
deliver- Description
- Deliver an accepted spec autonomously, from failing acceptance tests to a pull request with green checks. Use when a spec from `shape` is accepted, or for a bug fix whose reproduction and expected behavior are agreed.
- License
- MIT
- Instructions
- 37 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub
Files (2)
- SKILL.md
- openai.yaml · agents/
SKILL.md (first lines)
# Deliver Take one accepted spec to a pull request the human only has to merge. The spec's examples define success; the acceptance tests make them executable before any production code exists; the rest of the work makes them pass and leaves the code in good shape. Run to the end on your own. ## Start Read the spec at the path you were given, every source its Context and Decisions point to, the project's coding standards, and its gate configuration. Require `Status: Accepted`. For a bug fix, the agreed reproduction and expected behavior are the spec. Work on the current branch in the current worktree. ## 1. Acceptance tests Turn each `test` example into an executable test at the spec's test boundary, with the project's verification method, under the spec's real target conditions. Name each test for the behavior it proves, in words a reader without the spec follows, without the example's ID. Run them and watch each go **red** for the right reason: the behavior is missing, not the setup broken. A test for something that must never happen must be able to fail. Commit the tests on their own; when the project's hooks reject failing tests, mark them as expected failures until the code makes them pass. These assertions are the contract. Glue around them, such as setup, selectors, and helpers, may change as the code takes shape. An assertion changes only when it misstates its example; list each such change for the [report](#report). ## 2. Make it work Make the tests pass, then capture each `capture` example from the running product. Commit as you go. Done when every acceptance test is green, the project's gates pass, and the evidence is captured. What must outlive the spec goes into the change: behavior is already in tests; rationale goes into an ADR through `adr`; project-wide rules are drafted where `agents-md` keeps them; and a new or changed domain term goes into the project's glossary, in its existing format, when the project keeps one. The human accepts all of it with the pull request; a project without a glossary gets one only when the human agrees. What only a later issue needs goes into that issue. ## 3. Refine Run `refine` in a fresh context, such as a subagent, with the spec, the diff range from where delivery began, and the assertion changes. When the harness offers no fresh context, run it yourself and say so in the report. ## 4. Ship Run `ship` once `refine` finishes. When `refine` stopped on blockers, stop with its report instead. A production change made after `refine` finishes, such as a fix for a CI check or one the human asks for, gets a fresh review of that change and its callers before the pull request is ready. ## Decisions along the way Decide reversible choices yourself and record the ones the human would want to know about for the report. A one-way door the spec does not settle, such as a migration, a new contract that writes, or a change to a seam an accepted ADR governs, is not one of them. An accepted program design constrains them: follow it where the code agrees, and name each departure from it in the report with its reason. Stop and ask when the change needs one, or when evidence shows that an example, a decision in the spec, or an accepted one-way door is wrong, and continue with work that does not depend on it. The examples are the contract, but a number that sets how much to verify, such as a repetition count, a sample size, or a margin, is a decision like any other: before a verification that runs long or repeats, time one run, and when the whole would cost out of proportion to what it adds, that is evidence its decision is wrong. Put anything to the human, a question or a stop such as `refine`'s blockers, so they can answer it without opening the spec: the behavior at stake in plain words, the options, and your recommendation, written with `writing-for-people`. ## Report End with a report to the human, in their language, in your final message rather than the pull request, written with `writing-for-people`. It carries what the pull request leaves out because only someone who knows the spec can use it: the pull request and its check state, how each example is proven, every deviation from the spec and from the program design with its reason, each changed acceptance assertion, the decisions you made on your own, and `refine`'s report. ## Done The draft pull request is open, its checks are green, every example is proven by a test or a capture, and every deviation from the spec is named in the report. The human marks it ready for review and merges.
From taecontrol/skills, MIT.
More from taecontrol/skills
- 0.592score
architect
taecontrol
Settle a one-way door before code locks it: a change to persisted data or its schema, a contract that writes, a security boundary, an ownership model, or a…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.592score
prototype
taecontrol
Make a design question tangible before committing to it: compare production-representative UI directions for a screen, component, or short flow, or drive a…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.592score
strategic-programming
taecontrol
Apply strategic programming to non-trivial implementation and repair work when green tests alone cannot establish a maintainable design.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.589score
refine
taecontrol
Review a working change with fresh eyes against its spec, then make it right and make it fast without changing the behavior its acceptance tests lock, in at…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
research
taecontrol
Investigate a bounded question against high-trust primary sources through parallel independent research, then produce a cross-checked Markdown report.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
setup-verification
taecontrol
Give agents hands and eyes on a project: one way to launch, drive, and observe the real product, and acceptance tests that run fast and the same locally and…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
spike
taecontrol
Run a bounded technical experiment when observation is needed to settle feasibility, integration, performance, or tool behavior.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
ship
taecontrol
Publish finished work as a pull request and drive its CI checks to green.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
diagnosing-bugs
taecontrol
Establish the mechanism behind a hard, intermittent, recurring, or performance failure from a faithful reproduction or distinguishing runtime evidence.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
garden
taecontrol
Tend a codebase between features: find drift in one area, group it by cause, and fix the causes worth their cost in one behavior-preserving pull request.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
shape
taecontrol
Shape a problem with the human into one accepted spec: what to build, what success means, and how to prove it, before anyone writes production code.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.584score
skill-guide
taecontrol
Explain available skills, compare their boundaries, or recommend what the user should invoke next.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9
Signals
- Stars
- 1
- Forks
- 0
- Open issues
- 0
- Last commit (this folder)
- Oct 23, 2026 (12 days ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- MIT
- Repository
- github.com/taecontrol/skills
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from taecontrol
- 0.592score
strategic-programming
taecontrol
Apply strategic programming to non-trivial implementation and repair work when green tests alone cannot establish a maintainable design.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.592score
prototype
taecontrol
Make a design question tangible before committing to it: compare production-representative UI directions for a screen, component, or short flow, or drive a…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.592score
architect
taecontrol
Settle a one-way door before code locks it: a change to persisted data or its schema, a contract that writes, a security boundary, an ownership model, or a…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.589score
refine
taecontrol
Review a working change with fresh eyes against its spec, then make it right and make it fast without changing the behavior its acceptance tests lock, in at…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
diagnosing-bugs
taecontrol
Establish the mechanism behind a hard, intermittent, recurring, or performance failure from a faithful reproduction or distinguishing runtime evidence.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9 - 0.587score
garden
taecontrol
Tend a codebase between features: find drift in one area, group it by cause, and fix the causes worth their cost in one behavior-preserving pull request.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1Claude Code +9
Done for you
Rather not set it up yourself?
Chalk Labs scopes, builds and runs agents for your team: the task audit, the eval harness, the integrations and the weekly ops report. Fixed scope, priced before we start.
See how we build AI agents →Read the case studies
Chalk Labs is a two-founder AI and growth studio. We build AI agents, CRMs and MVPs for Web3 and AI companies, and have shipped 50+ product and token launches.
- launches shipped
- 50+
- launches shipped
- media placements
- 500+
- media placements
- founders on every account
- 2
- founders on every account
Press we've placed: Forbes · CoinDesk · Decrypt · Cointelegraph · The Block
Rahil Jain, Co-founder, Chalk Labs. Ex-Goldman Sachs engineer. You talk to the person who builds it.
Get deliver running in your business
Tell us what you want to automate. A founder replies within one working day with a plan, not a pitch deck.
Cite this page
deliver skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/taecontrol-deliver (last updated 2026-10-24)