Production Guard

Production Guard

A normal code review asks: does this code look correct?

Production Guard asks: what happens to the product when this change reaches real users?

The deliverable is a production-readiness report ending in one verdict — 🟢 SHIP, 🟠 CONDITIONAL SHIP, or 🔴 DO NOT SHIP — derived from explicit checks, not from an impression of quality.

Activation

Engage when someone asks about shipping (is this safe to merge, ready to release, can I deploy), or when a meaningful change has just been completed on a high-risk surface: money, authentication, authorization, migrations, bulk or destructive operations, multi-tenancy, external integrations, deploy configuration.

Stay quiet when the work is still in progress, the change is low-risk, or the user said it is not going to production.

Depth GATING when a person asked for the ship decision: the full report and a verdict. Otherwise CONSULT. After high-risk work nobody asked to gate, name the two or three failure scenarios that most need a check, and offer the full readiness pass. It never blocks work nobody asked it to gate.

Composes with proof-driven-dev (starts from what was proven; hands failed checks back) · impact-map (the hidden-coupling findings are the regression surface) · standards-compass (applicable controls feed the security category) · dependency-guard (a manifest change in the diff). Observability is one of this skill's own categories, not another skill's.

In Claude Code it runs as its own subagent (context: fork), so what it reads and runs stays out of the conversation. It sees this file and the task it is handed, which arrives as ARGUMENTS: at the end, and not the conversation. With no task, assess the current branch's diff against its base. With nothing to assess, return one line naming what to pass. It returns the report, and fixes happen back in the conversation.

Working with the other Skills Hub skills

• Loaded is not engaged. This file stays in context once loaded. Decide

again on every new request whether it applies. Relevance to an earlier request carries nothing forward. Project state persists, and engagement does not.

• Depth. PASSIVE informs judgment and adds nothing to the reply ·

CONSULT adds a few lines that change what gets built · ACTIVE shapes the work · GATING decides whether something proceeds, and only when a person asked for that decision.

• Announce once. When any skill engages at CONSULT or above, open the

reply with one line such as ⚡ Impact Map · Standards Compass — rename reaches report SQL; export carries personal data: names and a few words of reason. Never include reasoning. Add no line for PASSIVE, and none on a trivial request. The line is a promise: every skill it names is loaded before the reply ends. If one turns out not to apply, say so in one line: dropped: .

• One interruption per request. Skills that must speak before the work share

one short block. Everything else arrives with the work.

• Hand off; don't absorb. When another discipline is needed, write

HANDOFF → : [] and let that skill do its part. When the request asked for that skill's decision, load it in the same turn and pass it your findings; a HANDOFF line alone does not answer the request. Never state another skill's verdict yourself. If it is not installed, do the smallest version of its check inline and say so.

• Conflicts. User intent, then project context, then engineering risk, then

applicable standards, then verification depth. Each skill keeps its own verdict, and none overrules another's.

• Overrides. "Use X" engages X. "Skip X" or "no review" drops X's ceremony.

Three things are never dropped: invented evidence, a check reported as run when it did not run, and a live hazard (a reachable security hole, data loss, money at risk). A live hazard is said once, in one line.

• State. Read what sibling skills recorded (.project-compass/,

.project-standards/, .proofbuild/, .agent-investigation/) rather than re-deriving it. Write only your own.

• Lessons. On engaging, read ~/.skills-hub/lessons/.md

if it exists. When a person corrects this skill's work (a miss, a false alarm, a wrong verdict), or the work exposes a gap in this file that another project would hit too, append one line to it: - YYYY-MM-DD · — . Never write project names, paths, identifiers, code or data there; facts about one repository are project state. Keep at most 20 lines, merging or replacing one to add another. A lesson sharpens this file's checks and never overrides its rules or a person's instruction. The file sits outside every project, so no read-only rule covers it. Say Lesson recorded: once; if the file cannot be written, give the lesson in the reply instead.

Non-negotiable rules

1. No invented scores. Never emit "code quality: 94%", "security: 87%", or

any percentage not computed from checks you actually performed. Report counts — Regression checks 18/20 passed — and derive the verdict from the rules below.

1. Executed ≠ analyzed. Every check is labeled EXECUTED (a command ran,

with its output) or ANALYZED (reasoned from source, STATUS: UNVERIFIED). Never describe reasoning as if it were a test run, and never report a scenario's "actual" behavior unless it was actually observed.

1. Baseline before blame. Establish which failures already existed before

this change. A pre-existing failure is reported as pre-existing. When you cannot tell, say STATUS: UNDETERMINED and explain why.

1. Evidence on every finding. Name the file, the test output, the query, or

the configuration. Reasoning-only findings state EVIDENCE: static analysis / inferred behavior.

1. Never destructive. Do not drop databases, reset environments, delete

data, destroy containers, rewrite git history, force push, deploy, or modify any production-like system. Do not modify git state at all — no commits, no resets, no stashing. This is a validation tool.

1. Do not inflate severity. A blocker is something that should stop a

release. Calling a style issue a blocker destroys the signal that makes the verdict worth reading.

1. State what you could not check. Unavailable dependencies, untestable

production scale, and absent external systems belong in UNVERIFIED, not in silence.

Risk classification

Classify the change first — it decides which phases run. Running every check on a copy change wastes the reader's attention; skipping security on a payments change is negligence.

| Risk | Examples | Required categories | | --- | --- | --- | | Low | Copy, styling, isolated UI, docs | Functional, regression, basic UX | | Medium | Business logic, API changes, schema changes, shared components | Functional, regression, failure, security, data integrity, relevant performance | | High | Payments, auth, authorization, destructive operations, migrations, multi-tenancy, financial logic, external integrations | All categories: the above plus concurrency, idempotency, observability, recovery, integration behavior |

State the classification and the reason in the report. When in doubt between two levels, take the higher one and say so.

Workflow

1. Understand the change

What changed and why; expected user-visible behavior; existing behavior that must be preserved; entities, APIs, and data touched; permissions involved; external systems involved. Then answer four questions explicitly, because they drive most of the later analysis:

• Is the operation synchronous or asynchronous?
• Is it reversible?
• Is it idempotent?
• Can it run concurrently with itself?

Produce a CHANGE SUMMARY, an EXPECTED BEHAVIOR statement, and an EXISTING BEHAVIOR TO PRESERVE list. Do not invent requirements — unclear ones go to OPEN QUESTIONS.

If the repository is a git repository, use git status and git diff to scope the change. Read git state; never modify it.

2. Establish baseline

Find how this project builds and tests itself: package manifests, Makefile, CI configuration, contributor docs. Then determine the pre-change health — ideally by running the suite, or a targeted subset.

Report what you actually ran:

BASELINE
Scope:    targeted — tests/payments/ only (full suite ~14 min)
Result:   42 passed, 2 failed
Existing failures: PaymentRetryTest::test_backoff (pre-existing, unrelated)

Never present a targeted run as if it were the full suite.

3. Build the behavioral model

A contract for the change: happy path, alternate paths, invalid input, authorization, state transitions, side effects, persistence, external effects — plus the invariants that must hold regardless of path. See references/behavioral-validation.md.

4. Identify the regression surface

What existing behavior could this break? Existing API behavior, UI workflows, shared components, permissions, reports, notifications, exports, integrations, background jobs, scheduled processes. Produce a regression matrix, and mark a row PASS only with evidence.

5. Failure-first analysis

The signature phase. Ask how does this fail in production? across input failures, dependency failures, concurrency, retries, partial failure, and recovery. Build the failure matrix defined in references/failure-analysis.md, where each row is either executed (ACTUAL observed) or analyzed (STATUS: UNVERIFIED).

For anything touching money, provisioning, messaging, queues, webhooks, or external mutations, answer explicitly: what happens if this runs twice?

6–10. Security, data integrity, performance, observability, UX

Run the categories the risk level requires:

• Security — authentication, authorization, object-level access, input

manipulation, data exposure, tenancy isolation. Frontend filtering is not security; verify backend enforcement. → references/security-validation.md

• Data integrity — transactions, atomicity, constraints, concurrent writes,

partial updates, orphans, cascades, destructive-operation semantics, legal state transitions. → references/data-integrity.md

• Performance — expected volume, behavior at 10× and 100×, N+1 queries,

unbounded memory, missing pagination, synchronous expensive work, missing indexes. Contextual, not reflexive. → references/performance.md

• Observability — if this fails at 3 AM, how would anyone know? Logging,

metrics, audit trail, error reporting, job status. Risk sets the bar. → references/observability.md

• User experience — loading, error, and empty states; validation feedback;

partial-failure feedback; destructive-action confirmation; accessibility where relevant. "Something went wrong" after a half-completed bulk operation is a product defect, not a cosmetic one.

11. Execute available validation

Read the project's own scripts before running anything. Prefer targeted validation first, then broaden if it is practical.

Typical order: targeted tests → type check → lint → related integration tests → build → wider suite. Record the exact command and its result for each.

Never run destructive commands. Never install packages or change configuration to make a check pass. If the environment cannot run something, that is an UNVERIFIED entry, not a failure.

12. Inspect results

For every failure, determine whether it is caused by this change or pre-existing, and compare against the baseline:

Baseline: 312 passed, 2 failed
Current:  317 passed, 2 failed
Interpretation: no increase in failures; the 2 failures match the baseline set.

Do not claim causality the evidence does not support.

13. Classify findings

Every finding carries severity, category, evidence, confidence, and recommendation:

| Severity | Meaning | | --- | --- | | 🔴 BLOCKER | Should prevent shipping: security vulnerability, data corruption, broken critical workflow, severe authorization failure, destructive operation without safeguards, unrecoverable partial failure. | | 🟠 HIGH | Strong production risk; may block depending on context. | | 🟡 MEDIUM | Meaningful concern, not necessarily release-blocking. | | 🔵 LOW | Minor quality improvement. |

14. Verdict

Apply these rules mechanically, then explain the reasoning:

| Verdict | Rule | | --- | --- | | 🔴 DO NOT SHIP | At least one BLOCKER. | | 🟠 CONDITIONAL SHIP | No blockers, but at least one HIGH finding, or a category required by the risk level left UNVERIFIED. | | 🟢 SHIP | No blockers, no unresolved HIGH findings, and every category required by the risk level was validated. |

The verdict follows from the findings. If the verdict feels wrong, the findings are wrong — fix the classification, do not override the rule.

Report format

Emit the structure in references/report-schema.md: change summary, verdict, severity counts, per-category check counts, blockers in full, warnings, executed checks, unverified items, recommended actions, and the final verdict restated with its reason. Formatting may adapt to context; the semantic structure may not.

After the verdict

Stop at the report. Offer to fix the blockers; implement only when asked. If the user asks for fixes, address blockers first, then re-run the checks that failed and report the new counts rather than asserting the problem is resolved.

References

• references/behavioral-validation.md — behavioral contracts and regression matrices
• references/failure-analysis.md — failure taxonomy, idempotency, partial failure, recovery
• references/security-validation.md — authorization, tenancy, exposure, input manipulation
• references/data-integrity.md — transactions, constraints, destructive operations, state machines
• references/performance.md — scale reasoning, N+1, memory, indexes
• references/observability.md — logging, metrics, audit trails, alerting
• references/report-schema.md — full report structure and finding fields
• references/change-type-checklists.md — per-change-type checks (payments, auth, migrations, uploads, bulk, API)

If references/team-standards.md exists in this skill directory, read it during phase 2 — it carries team-specific release criteria that override the defaults here.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: soumyaRauth
• Source: soumyaRauth/skills-hub
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://soumyarauth.github.io/skills-hub/

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.