agentsclimarketplace

Workflow self anneal

Skill chf3198/megingjord-harness/skills/workflow-self-anneal

Run a bounded self-annealing review of operating instructions and workflow outcomes. Use this after failures, after long sessions, before merge, or when repeated mismatches appear between intended process and observed execution.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add chf3198/megingjord-harness --skill workflow-self-anneal

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.8 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Workflow Self-Anneal

Purpose

Perform a controlled, auditable improvement pass on instructions and process docs to reduce repeated failures while preserving human control.

This skill optimizes process reliability, not model internals.

Hard safety constraints

  1. No unbounded loops or autonomous "improve forever" behavior.
  2. Max one anneal pass per invocation; max three proposed doc changes.
  3. No deploy/publish success claims without verification evidence.
  4. Do not modify security/permission policy automatically; propose only.
  5. If evidence insufficient, return NO_CHANGE with missing-evidence list.

Trigger conditions

  • Same failure pattern ≥2 times in 7 days.
  • Session crash/restart/tooling instability.
  • Instructions contradicted by observed actions.
  • Pre-merge gate requires hardening evidence.
  • Repeated carryover/blocked items across iterations.
  • PR/merge latency breaches targets or reopened issues trend up.
  • Commits exist without linked GitHub issues (process drift).
  • Consultant check registry returns ≥1 FAIL on domain:governance.
  • Fleet check fleet-002 (cost-budget) FAIL for ≥2 consecutive cycles.

Consultant Integration

Self-anneal may be invoked automatically from consultant-feedback.js when gov-002 (baton-artifact-presence) or gov-003 (event-emission) FAIL — these are workflow process failures, not implementation bugs. Check IDs are managed in scripts/global/consultant-checks.js (3 domains: governance/tools/fleet).

Input collection

Collect: execution artifacts (logs, errors, checks), instructions/workflow docs, recent commits/PR notes. If unavailable, declare missing and stop.

Analysis protocol

  1. Detect mismatch: expected vs observed behavior.
  2. Classify root cause: ambiguity|missing guardrail|stale instruction|tool fragility|human override.
  3. Assess recurrence risk: low|medium|high by frequency and blast radius.
  4. Detect Agile drift signals: carryover, blocked age, review/merge latency, reopen rate.
    • Ticket linkage: git log --oneline | wc -l vs --grep='#'. If <80%, flag ticket-linkage-drift.
    • PR coverage: commits vs gh pr list --state all. If 0 PRs, flag pr-coverage-drift.
    • Event gaps: count events in .dashboard/events.jsonl per role transition. If <1 event per baton handoff, flag event-emission-drift.
  5. Propose minimal fix: smallest docs/workflow delta preventing recurrence.
  6. Define verification gate: objective checks confirming the fix.

Output format (required)

Return exactly this structure:

SELF_ANNEAL_REPORT
context: <session-start|post-failure|pre-merge|post-release>
scope: <workflow|stability|qa|git>
observation: [...]
expected_behavior: [...]
mismatch: [...]
root_cause: <ambiguity|missing guardrail|stale instruction|tool fragility|human override>
risk: <low|medium|high>
drift_signals:
- metric: <carryover|blocked-age|review-latency|merge-latency|reopen-rate|ticket-linkage|pr-coverage>
   trend: <improving|stable|degrading>  evidence: <artifact>
proposed_changes:
1) file: <path>  change_type: <add|edit|remove>  rationale: <why>
verification_plan:
- check: <objective>  pass_condition: <measurable>
decision: <apply|defer|NO_CHANGE>
missing_evidence: <none or list>

Change targeting guidance

Prioritize: project runbooks/checklists, workflow docs, system-stability docs, learnings docs.

Stop conditions

Return NO_CHANGE if: change cannot be validated objectively, evidence is missing, change expands permissions, or same fix was already applied.

For iterative anneal loops (refinement passes), call shouldStop(...) from scripts/global/anneal-stop.js after every iteration (Epic #1568 AC-5, #1574). Stop when: deterministic gates green, OR iterations >= 3, OR |rubric_mean_delta| <= 0.5. Continuation past a stop requires ANNEAL_OVERRIDE_CONTINUE: rationale comment from the operator and is logged as event:kill-switch-bypass.

Quality bar

Good anneal output is: specific (concrete artifacts), minimal (smallest viable delta), testable (pass/fail checks), traceable (rationale + risk), trend-aware (drift reducing).

Visual verification rule (publish/UX scope)

For UX-rendered changes: require post-change visual inspection artifact. Do not allow ticket closure from DOM/CI checks alone. If visual evidence is missing, decision must be defer.

What ships with it: 1 file

1.1 KB alongside SKILL.md

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most automation workflows skills give in ~1.1k tokens

Counted across 745 of the 1,008 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Write conventional commit messagesin 36 of 745, across 35 files
  • Delete branches after mergein 30 of 745, across 21 files
  • Make atomic commitsin 25 of 745, across 15 files
  • Write minimal code to pass testsin 22 of 745, across 10 files
  • Re-snapshot after navigation or DOM changesin 21 of 745, across 13 files
  • Use try-catch for error handlingin 20 of 745, across 8 files
  • Run tests before committingin 20 of 745, across 12 files
  • Write tests before implementationin 20 of 745, across 8 files
  • Configure branch protection rulesin 19 of 745, across 5 files
  • Explain the why in commit messagesin 19 of 745, across 9 files
  • Refactor code while tests remain greenin 19 of 745, across 6 files
  • Interact with elements using refsin 19 of 745, across 11 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • classify root cause of mismatches
  • assess recurrence risk
  • propose minimal process fixes
  • define objective verification gates
  • collect execution artifacts
  • prioritize runbooks and checklists

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,144. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.