Imported from bentleypark/aiwatch (.claude/skills/ship-issue/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add bentleypark/aiwatch --skill ship-issue. Copyright stays with the author.

Ship an issue — per-issue workflow

This is the canonical procedure. CLAUDE.md holds the architecture/reference (what the code is); the #415 hooks are the mechanical backstop (mostly soft reminders at the tool-call moment — the stop-nag gate can block — but they can't run a multi-step procedure or see issue state). This skill is the procedure — follow it top to bottom.

⚙️ Non-negotiable gates (the most-missed — re-check at the decision moment, not just here)

1. Local verify (step 3.5) — before committing, start the right dev server AND get the USER's explicit in-browser confirmation. Your own curl/Playwright/test runs do not satisfy this. "Tests pass" ≠ "feature verified". After requesting verification, STOP and wait for the user.
   • Dashboard data source: DEFAULT to the local worker with real data (npm run dev:worker + ALLOWED_ORIGIN=* in worker/.dev.vars) — the SPA's MOCK_SERVICES fixture is stale/fabricated and misrepresents real states, and the prod workers.dev worker is CORS-blocked from localhost (Origin allowlist). See CLAUDE.md "Local verification by page type" Note.
   • Reachability gate: if the change only manifests under a specific state (active incident, down/degraded, AI analysis, error/empty, a flag), that state is usually absent in live data — set up the trigger yourself (mock usePolling, seed local KV, craft a fixture), confirm it renders, then hand off telling the user exactly which state to look at. Revert the temp mock/fixture before commit (git checkout it) and confirm git status shows only intended files.
   • UI-less backend change (cron/WAE/RSS XML): there's no browser surface — verify by producing the real artifact (e.g. run the actual builder fn, fetch the real endpoint) and show it; say so plainly.
2. PR review before every commit — run /pr-review-toolkit:review-pr; fix all Critical/Important; auto-loop (fix → re-test → re-review) until a round is 0 Critical/Important. Don't wait for a prompt to start the next round.
3. Commit / push / PR / merge only after the user asks or confirms. A green/MERGEABLE PR is NOT a cue to auto-merge.
4. No nag — never end a turn with "shall I proceed / merge / 진행할까요? / 다음 작업 진행할까요?". Report results and stop.

Per-issue steps (follow in order)

0. Re-read this skill + the issue. gh issue view N — note every checklist item.
1. Branch from main: git checkout main && git pull && git checkout -b {type}/{N}-{desc} (type ∈ fix/feat/refactor/docs/chore/test). Even issue-less free-form changes get a branch — never commit to main. Before committing, git status must show only the intended files (branch switches can drag a prior PR's staged/untracked files along).
   • First check gh pr list for an existing open PR on the same issue (avoid dupes).
   • Worktree (parallel sessions): run git worktree list FIRST, before branching. A worktree or a main-repo branch you didn't create means a concurrent session is active (already being in your OWN worktree satisfies this); in that case do this work in a git worktree (claude --worktree <name> / git worktree add), NOT an in-place branch on the shared main repo (a concurrent session can git checkout it out from under you, dragging its uncommitted WIP into your diff — the failure this rule exists to prevent). Launched via the VS Code extension? It does not auto-create a worktree (the Desktop app does) — say "work in a worktree" right after the session starts to relocate via the EnterWorktree tool. See CLAUDE.md "Parallel sessions (git worktrees)". Once in a worktree, edit / cd / test only via the worktree path: an absolute or main-root path silently leaks edits into the main repo (memory feedback_worktree_edit_path). ls early to confirm you're in the worktree.
2. Design check (UI only) — compare against docs/AIWatch_화면디자인_초안_v2.html; list every spacing/color/font/layout/text difference before coding.
3. Code the change. 3.5. Local verify — gate #1 above. Hand off and wait for the user's in-browser confirmation.
4. Build + test by scope:
   • Frontend (src/): npm run build + npm run test:src + npm test (Playwright).
   • Worker (worker/): npx wrangler deploy --config worker/wrangler.toml --dry-run + npm run test:worker.
   • New worker logic → extract to an exported fn + unit-test it. New src/utils/ → Vitest test.
   • Every bug fix ships a test that would have caught the bug.
5. PR review — gate #2: /pr-review-toolkit:review-pr. How to invoke it and how to read what it returns — which agent by domain, why only code-reviewer carries a severity floor, and why the suggested rewrites in a report are not to be adopted — is docs/reference/code-review-policy.md (#1245).
   • From round 2 onward, spawn review-findings-only directly — subagent_type: "review-findings-only", in place of the plugin's code-reviewer. /pr-review-toolkit:review-pr selects among its own plugin agents, so this one is reached only by naming it. It keeps the ≥80 floor, withholds the replacement prose that reseeded findings on #1293, and requires the round attribution step 6's causal trigger runs on (#1298).
   • Carry the round number, the RUNNING Critical total, and the prior round's findings into the next review prompt (#1097/#1124). The review agents are spawned fresh each round and cannot see how many rounds have run or what the last one found — you are the only place that history lives, so state it: "this is round N; round N-1 flagged {findings}, which I fixed by {changes}; {C} Criticals so far across all rounds; for each finding, say whether the text it lands on was added by my last round's fix." The {changes} slot and that last clause are what step 6's trigger runs on — every round of the loop sits in one cumulative uncommitted diff, so unless you say what the last fix changed the reviewer cannot attribute anything, and on #1110 the causality was volunteered only from round 5 on. The cumulative total is what makes not converging visible while each individual round still looks healthy.
6. Fix review findings — auto-loop to 0 Critical/Important (Suggestions-only = converged).
   • Ask one question of fact about each finding before acting on it: did it arrive with a reproduction, a failing check, or a mutation that goes red? (#1245) Per finding, not per round: a round mixes both kinds, and one adjudicable finding must not carry its siblings into the next round on its reproduction.
     • Yes → work it, and never cap the rounds. Several rounds is normal and legitimate: on #1052 four rounds each found a guard that reported green while guarding nothing, all via real mutations; on #1110 round 3 found an unescaped apostrophe that broke /methodology's inline i18n script.
     • No → do not carry it into another round. Build the thing that would adjudicate it first, or — when nothing could — drop the claim instead of rewording it. #1237 hit this and named the remedy itself: two fixes attempted during review "produced worse defects" in a script with "no automated test", so it deferred that piece — "Follow-up, harness first". #1241 built the harness first, and its rounds then reproduced seven defects before fixing each.
   • STOP when the previous round's fix INTRODUCED this round's finding, twice in a row (#1124). This trigger is causal, not a label — it needs no self-classification. It replaces the old "same finding category 3 rounds running" trigger, which was self-assigned and therefore evadable: on #1110 rounds were labelled by surface topic ("apostrophe", "hollow guard", "roster omission"), so "new category → keep going" read as healthy for 8 rounds and 17 Criticals.
   • When it fires, change the CLASS of fix — do not take another pass at the sentence. Ask: (a) is this claim load-bearing for the point being made? If not, delete it — an unneeded enumeration / classification / causal claim is verification debt, not content. (b) Am I holding a conclusion fixed and swapping in weaker support each round? Then weaken the conclusion to what the evidence carries, not the wording — milder-each-round is the tell.
   • Delete the CONSTRUCT, not the sentence. Copy that restates code branch logic — service enumerations, render conditions, per-source parser matrices — is unbounded verification debt: no test pins it and it drifts with every parser change (memory feedback_no_prose_mirror_of_code_branches). When a finding lands on such a construct twice, remove the construct. "Delete it" was satisfied cosmetically three times on #1110 by dropping individual clauses while the enumeration that kept generating them stayed; deleting a never-needed parser list ended the last-4-of-12 sub-loop on #1091 instantly.
   • Prose: from round 4 of the loop onward, a fix to the FLAGGED TEXT may only REMOVE text (#1124) — a purely mechanical correction (escaping, a typo, a renamed identifier) is not an addition. A qualifier added to be "more precise" is itself a new unverified claim. Applies to docs, comments and issue bodies as much as to UI copy.
7. Docs update — update whatever the change affects: CLAUDE.md (architecture/service count/layout — keep it lean, ~40k-char guideline — check python3 -c "print(len(open('CLAUDE.md').read()))", move detail to docs/reference/ if near), the relevant docs/reference/ file (see the directory — kv-schema, ga4-events, fallback-tiers, status-determination, discord-alert-paths, etc.), README(.ko), CONTRIBUTING.md, index.html SEO meta, aiwatch-reports/. Adding a service → the full adding-a-service.md checklist.
8. Commit + PR (gate #3 — only after the user confirms):
   • Commit message + PR body end with the required Co-Authored-By / 🤖 footer.
   • closes #N only when ALL checklist items are done AND verified — this includes time/production-gated verification (e.g. "queryable after deploy", "shows after next cron"): if such an item can't be verified yet, it's a remaining item → use refs #N and close manually after verifying (do NOT let closes auto-close it prematurely).
   • Production-gated → add a verify-after line (#541) so the check isn't forgotten: when an item needs a production-data check after a delay, add a line to the issue body - [ ] **verify-after YYYY-MM-DD** — what to check + where (pick a realistic date). The daily verify-reminders GitHub Action pings the operator Discord when due (and weekly while open); closing the issue / removing the line cancels it. This replaces "remember to check the board".
   • If the check is machine-checkable, add a Tier-A assert: line (#873) so the daily job auto-verifies it (ticks the box + drops verify-blocked + closes) instead of pinging you. Indent it directly under the verify-after line: assert: GET /api/status/cached | services[id=turbopuffer].scoreConfidence == "medium". Assertable = a predicate over an AIWatch JSON endpoint (a /api/status field, a count/threshold, exists); NOT GA4/GSC-CTR/consent-gated or behavioral checks — leave those as a plain human ping. Validate it before it ships: node scripts/verify-assertions.mjs --issue N (dry-run is the default; --apply mutates). Grammar + allowlist + fail-open semantics: docs/reference/verify-assertions.md.
   • ⚠️ Before writing the date, name what will still EXIST on it (#1206). A dated line is worth nothing if the thing it points at is gone when the ping arrives. On 2026-08-05 three came due and all three were undecidable: #1179's KV records had aged out (7h/24h TTLs), #1104's code path leaves no trace at all, #1103 needed an operator tweet nobody had sent. Two were closed unverified. So one of these three must hold, or the line does not get a date:
     1. an assert: sub-line (above) — a machine decides it; or
     2. a durable: sub-line naming an artifact that outlives date − today, e.g. durable: incidents:monthly:2026-08 (60d retention) / durable: Discord #ops-alerts; or
     3. neither is possible → add the instrumentation in this PR so a trace exists, or write no date — just a reopen trigger in the body ("reopen when X happens, then check Y"). A KV key's TTL is the usual trap: check it against the date. The daily job labels verify-undecidable on any not-yet-due line carrying neither marker, so this is caught within a day either way — but fixing it while the context is warm is the point.
   • An overdue item is not extended forever. Past 30 days overdue the daily report escalates it as needs a disposition rather than pinging again (#1206). The disposition is a human one: make the check observable, or close the issue with a written reopen trigger. Never "push the date".
   • Placement (canonical, #921 format): collect EVERY verify-after line — each with its indented assert: sub-line, if any — under ONE dedicated heading at the bottom of the body:

     ## Production-gated verification
     - [ ] **verify-after YYYY-MM-DD** — what to check + where. PR #N.
           assert: GET /api/status/cached | services[id=X].field == "value"
     - [ ] **verify-after YYYY-MM-DD** — a human check, with the artifact it will read named.
           durable: archive:monthly:2026-08 (no TTL)
     

     assert: and durable: may appear in either order under the line, and a line may carry both. One consistent home — NOT inline in a part's checklist, NOT a top > Status: callout — so the reminder lines are always in the same place and the body-drift guard reads cleanly. A multi-part issue lists one verify-after line per part under the same heading (keep each line's note so it's clear which part it verifies). The verify-reminders scanner is whole-body, so placement is cosmetic for the automation — this convention is purely for human consistency across issues.
   • Cross-issue reconciliation — also scan OTHER open issues this change touches: fully implements another → add closes #M; partially advances → refs #M + comment; supersedes/invalidates another (a newer finding/feature makes it moot) → comment the why + close it.
   • Avoid stray close|fix|resolve #N keywords for issues you don't mean to close (auto-close trigger).
9. Verify Vercel Preview (frontend) from the PR.
10. Merge (gate #3): gh pr merge --squash --delete-branch.
    • Deploy: Vercel auto-deploys on main merge; Worker is manual — npm run deploy:worker (confirm output says Uploaded aiwatch-worker), once, after user approval. If several worker PRs are open, merge + resolve all THEN deploy once (no half-deploys).
    • Sync the issue body NOW — do NOT defer to close. When the PR used refs #N (the issue stays open for a verify-after), immediately reconcile the body: tick every shipped - [ ] box, add a dated > **Status (YYYY-MM-DD):** line summarizing what shipped + what remains, and apply the verify-blocked label. Why here and not step 11: step 11's checklist-sync fires at CLOSE, but a verify-blocked issue never reaches close for weeks — so its body silently drifts (shipped code still showing - [ ]) until a triage sweep finds it. This is the single most-missed sync (it's a late, no-gate step in GitHub, a different system than the git diff the hooks watch). The daily verify-reminders body-drift guard backstops it — it labels any verify-blocked (non-tracking) issue whose body still has unchecked NON-verify-after boxes — but the guard is the safety net; syncing at merge is the fix. (tracking umbrellas are exempt: they legitimately keep open sub-items.)
11. Verify checklist — gh issue view N; confirm every - [ ] item is actually implemented in code before closing. Re-run step-11-style verification on U3-someday/tracking issues periodically — later/incremental work may have completed one without any PR claiming closes.
12. Close — only after verification: gh issue close N. Unverified/not-yet-done items remain → keep the issue open with a label (U3-someday) whose exit condition is written in the body (e.g. "close when secrets set & data confirmed"). Never close immediately after merge.
    • Flip the initiative edge (#969). If this issue advanced an Initiative, move its advances:: #N to delivered:: #N on the initiative_* memory page — the one moment that fact becomes true. advances means pending; a closed issue left on it is a lint finding. Add (pin — why) when the delivered work still binds a future decision (e.g. it invalidates data a pending review will read). Without this step the graph holds only backlog, and strategy-review must re-derive progress from prose. Rules: docs/reference/decision-graph.md.
      • Flipping the edge is not enough — the prose goes stale too. The lint checks edges, not currency, so a delivered:: can be correct while the Next action / Inputs / blocker prose that framed the same issue as pending keeps lying. When you flip an edge, grep the page for that issue number and retire any sentence that called it a blocker, a next action, or a precondition — the resolution you just recorded made it moot. Same for a governing Decision that a closed issue resolves: set its Status: and any child decision whose trigger was that review. (This gap was hit on 2026-07-15: delivered:: #547 landed, but the "#547·16 blocks the review" analysis sat stale until the next review swept it.)

Why this is a skill, not just CLAUDE.md

CLAUDE.md loads once at session start and fades on long sessions / compaction, so its Development Workflow section gets skipped. Invoking this skill re-injects the full procedure at the moment you need it. It complements (does not replace) the #415 enforcement hooks and the CLAUDE.md reference.