agentsclimarketplace

Leader developer handoff contract

Skill wei18/apple-dev-skills/collaboration-skills/skills/leader-developer-handoff-contract

Reusable Claude Code skills for AI-agent-driven Swift / Apple-platform development — composable via git submodule; aggregates other specialist skill repos

Install
npx -y skills add wei18/apple-dev-skills --skill leader-developer-handoff-contract

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

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 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.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

When the main agent dispatches a sub-agent, the prompt MUST include 5 elements — (1) task scope with verifiable target, (2) files / docs the sub-agent should read, (3) explicit skill list to invoke, (4) expected return format (diff / markdown section / decision text), (5) verification criteria. Invoke when about to dispatch a sub-agent (Developer / Designer / Code Reviewer), writing the dispatch prompt, or when asked "what should the sub-agent prompt include".

SKILL.md

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

Leader → Developer Handoff Contract

When to invoke

  • About to dispatch a sub-agent (Developer / Designer / Code Reviewer / drafting agent).
  • Writing the dispatch prompt.
  • User asks "what should the sub-agent dispatch include / which elements am I missing".

The 5 required elements

Every dispatch prompt must contain:

1. Task scope with verifiable target

  • One sentence stating the goal.
  • Explicitly name the output file / section / behaviour.
  • Include a mechanically checkable success / failure condition.

Good: "Draft §5 Logger for docs/foundations.md; output format: complete markdown section; scope: adopt os.Logger defaults, with subsystem / category conventions and privacy default"

Bad: "Write something about logger"

2. Files / docs the sub-agent should read

  • List file names + sections.
  • Don't say "read design.md"; say "read design.md §How.2, foundations.md §3-§4".
  • Add grep targets / line ranges when useful to save the sub-agent's exploration tokens.

3. Explicit skill list to invoke

  • List the skill names the sub-agent should invoke (with plugin prefix).
  • Don't assume the sub-agent will guess.
  • Example: "invoke swift6-concurrency, swiftpm-modularization, swift-testing-baseline; review-style dispatches also list subagent-review-cycles".

4. Expected return format

Pick one explicitly (or custom):

  • Code diff (patch / full-file rewrite)
  • Markdown section (drop into a specified file's §)
  • Decision text (structured ACCEPT/REJECT/DEFER list)
  • Finding list (BLOCKER / MAJOR / MINOR)

Bad: "Report results" Good: "Return the complete §5 content as markdown, ready for the Leader to paste into foundations.md; no chit-chat"

5. Verification criteria

  • The conditions under which it counts as done.
  • For Developer: which tests must be green, which invariants must hold.
  • For Code Reviewer: review dimensions, forbidden tools (CLI), allowed tools (WebSearch).
  • For drafting agent: section structure, required subsections, required decisions.

Template

You are a <role> dispatched by the Leader.

## Task scope
<verifiable target, output file/section, success condition>

## Inputs (read these in order)
1. <path> §<section>
2. <path>
<...>

## Skills to invoke
- <skill-name-1>
- <skill-name-2>
<...>

## Return format
<one of: code diff / markdown section / decision text / finding list>
<exact shape>

## Verification criteria
- <criterion 1>
- <criterion 2>
<...>

## Constraints (optional)
- DO NOT <forbidden action>
- DO use <required tool / approach>

Examples drawn from real dispatches

Developer drafting design.md §How.3 (Game Center)

  • Scope: draft design.md §How.3 GC integration section, covering leaderboard / achievement / protocol / auth fallback / friends scope
  • Inputs: design.md §What.GC, foundations.md §1-§4
  • Skills: swift6-concurrency, swiftpm-modularization, swift-testing-baseline
  • Return: complete markdown section, ready to merge into design.md
  • Verification: includes 3 leaderboards + 10 achievements, protocol covers friends scope, auth failure has a fallback path

Code Reviewer round 1 over §How 1–7

  • Scope: review design.md §How.1 – §How.7 for technical correctness
  • Inputs: full design.md, foundations.md
  • Skills: subagent-review-cycles
  • Return: BLOCKER / MAJOR / MINOR finding list; each item with section location + suggestion
  • Verification: covers 4 dimensions (correctness / consistency / completeness / efficiency); cites Apple docs instead of CLI experimentation
  • Constraints: DO NOT run CLI; DO use WebSearch

Anti-patterns

  • Omitting verification criteria: the sub-agent self-judges "done", often misaligned with the Leader's expectation.
  • Listing "related skills" instead of "skills to invoke": the sub-agent may not actually trigger them.
  • Return format written as "free-form": every round looks different and integration cost balloons.
  • Scope too large (multiple sections / files in one round): review and revision cost explodes; split fine.

Verification checklist (for Leader before sending dispatch)

  • All 5 elements present (scope / inputs / skills / return format / verification).
  • Scope corresponds to "one verifiable target", not "a basket of work".
  • Skill names spelled correctly, with plugin prefix.
  • Return format is one of the four explicit categories.
  • Verification conditions are mechanically checkable.

Related skills

  • subagent-review-cycles: handoff is the starting point of each review-cycle round.
  • spec-phase-orchestration: every sub-agent dispatch in the spec phase follows this contract.
  • session-to-meeting-log: dispatch + returned-result summary lands in the meeting log.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most docs writing skills give in ~1.1k tokens

Counted across 1,637 of the 3,044 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Announce the skill at startin 54 of 1637, across 26 files
  • Convert legacy doc files before editingin 45 of 1637, across 7 files
  • Predict questions readers might askin 42 of 1637, across 4 files
  • Generate clarifying questions for initial contextin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Create document scaffold with placeholder textin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Brainstorm content options for each sectionin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Test the document with a fresh context-less instancein 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Include exact file paths in every taskin 42 of 1637, across 15 files
  • Ask interview questions one at a timein 42 of 1637, across 27 files
  • Apply surgical edits during refinementin 41 of 1637, across 2 files
  • Offer structured workflow or freeformin 40 of 1637, across 1 file
  • Ask for document meta-contextin 40 of 1637, across 2 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • include a verifiable task target
  • list specific files for the sub-agent to read
  • specify an expected return format
  • state mechanically checkable verification criteria
  • spell skill names correctly with plugin prefix
  • use one of four explicit return formats

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 328,083. 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.