Zum Inhalt

continuous-improvement-triage

Triagiert Portfolio-Audit-Findings und dispatched die Behebung an den passendsten spezialisierten Agent oder Skill.

Operationalises spec/project/continuous-improvement/ by triaging portfolio audit findings, classifying them against the available specialist catalog, and dispatching hands-on remediation to the most specialised available Claude agent or skill. Invoke when the user asks to \"triage continuous-improvement findings\", \"classify a portfolio-improvement opportunity\", \"dispatch findings to specialised agents\", \"run the quarterly specialist-coverage review\", \"check whether a finding class needs a new specialist\", or equivalent German-language requests. Drives the three-operation loop: audit (periodic specialist-coverage review), update (record decisions and dispatch specialists), close (terminate the triage cycle). Applies the three-recurrence gap-closure rule and records all dispatch decisions in fix-PR Risk / rollout notes. Do not use to perform the hands-on remediation itself—that belongs to the dispatched specialist. Supports resume on re-invocation per spec/claude/resumable-work/.

Anwenden wenn

  • you want to triage continuous-improvement findings across the portfolio
  • you want to classify a portfolio-improvement opportunity against the specialist catalog
  • you want to run the quarterly specialist-coverage review
  • you want to check whether a finding class needs a new specialist

Nicht anwenden wenn

Siehe auch

Referenziert von

Continuous Improvement Triage

Implements spec/project/continuous-improvement/ §Specialist dispatch, §Portfolio gap closure, and §Continuous loop and quarterly coverage review. The skill is the generalist orchestrator that classifies findings, dispatches the hands-on work to the most specialised available Claude agent or skill, and verifies that every fix PR carries the required audit trail. It never performs the specialist remediation itself when a matching specialist exists.

Why this is a skill, not an agent

  • User confirmation gates every dispatch decision. Finding classification, specialist-match confirmation, and gap-closure decisions all require mid-flow dialogue; an agent's fire-and-forget shape misses them.
  • Orchestrator pattern (per skill-vs-agent). The work is classify, dispatch, verify—not edit. The dispatched specialist does the mutating work; this skill stays in the main thread and chains other skills (pull-request-create, optionally pull-request-merge).
  • Quarterly cadence requires standing-session instructions. The specialist-coverage review surfaces decisions that accumulate across multiple prompts; a skill's persistent instruction context fits this naturally.
  • Counter-dimension considered: a narrow agent could handle the classification step in isolation and gain context-window protection, but every downstream lane (dispatch, gap-closure decision, PR annotation) is interactive—keeping the whole flow in one skill is simpler than splitting at the classification boundary.

German trigger phrases

  • „CI-Findings triagen"
  • „Quarterly Specialist-Coverage Review durchführen"
  • „Findings an Spezialisten dispatchen"
  • „Portfolio-Verbesserungsopportunität klassifizieren"
  • „Dreifach-Wiederholung prüfen, ob ein neuer Spezialist gebraucht wird"
  • „Triage-Zyklus abschließen"

Preconditions

Before any operation:

  • Confirm the working directory is a git repository and gh auth status reports authenticated.
  • Confirm spec/project/continuous-improvement/en.md exists in the current project. If missing, stop and report—without it the classifications are ad-hoc; this skill is the spec's implementer, not its replacement.
  • Read templates/triage.template.md to understand the triage artifact format before creating or updating a triage file.

A triage artifact must exist for update and close; if none exists, start with audit first.

Operations

1. audit

Perform the periodic specialist-coverage review mandated by the spec (at minimum once per calendar quarter).

  1. Locate merged remediation PRs. Run gh pr list --state merged --limit 50 --json number,title,body,labels and filter for PRs whose body contains a Risk / rollout notes section that references an in-scope finding source (spec-drift-audit, workflow-health, project-structure-apply, vocab-drift-audit, portfolio-audit, portfolio-inflight-triage, dependency-audit, prose-style, manual review Issue, or ad-hoc contributor observation).

  2. Extract dispatch signals. For each matched PR, parse the Risk / rollout notes section for:

  3. The Dispatched specialist: field — the named specialist, or the literal no matching specialist existed — generalist handled.
  4. The Originating source: field — the named originating finding source.

  5. If either field is absent, flag the PR as missing audit trail—this is itself a finding under the spec.

  6. Identify generalist-handled finding classes. Group the PRs by finding class (derived from the finding source and the nature of the fix). For each class, count how many times it was handled by a generalist (no specialist named). Classes at three or more generalist-handled occurrences trigger the gap-closure rule.

  7. Resolve the current specialist catalog. Glob agents/*.md (plus ~/.claude/agents/*.md), Read the description: line of every candidate, and build a (name, description) table. This is the runtime inventory—not a hard-coded snapshot.

  8. Match finding classes to specialists. For each generalist-handled finding class, walk the candidates and check whether any specialist's description now covers it. If a match exists but wasn't used historically, record that as a routing correction opportunity. If no match exists and the class has reached the three-recurrence threshold, record a gap-closure action required finding.

  9. Initialise the triage artifact. Instantiate templates/triage.template.md with triage-type: continuous-improvement, today's date, the repository name, scope: portfolio, and status: open. Populate ## Findings with the structured list from steps 2–5 and ## Processing log with an audit entry. Propose the artifact filename as .audits/continuous-improvement/<YYYY-QN>.md (for example .audits/continuous-improvement/2026-Q2.md) and confirm with the user before writing.

  10. Fold or separate coverage review. Per the spec, the quarterly specialist-coverage review SHOULD be folded into the spec-drift-audit artifact under a ## Specialist coverage review heading. Ask the user whether to fold or keep standalone; default to folding when a spec-drift-audit artifact for the same quarter already exists.

2. update

Record decisions on open findings and dispatch specialists.

  1. Confirm a triage artifact is open. Read the current .audits/continuous-improvement/ directory to locate the most recent status: open artifact. If none exists, redirect to audit.

  2. For each unresolved finding in ## Findings, present the finding, the current specialist match (from the runtime catalog), and the three decision options:

  3. Dispatch specialist: select the named specialist and record its subagent_type in the finding.
  4. Defer with reason: record an explicit deferral note (reason + owner + target quarter).

  5. Initiate gap-closure: if no matching specialist exists and the recurrence threshold is met, dispatch Agent(subagent_type="nolte-shared:claude-plugin-developer") to author a new specialist or extend an existing one's description.

  6. Dispatch hands-on remediation. For each finding with a dispatch decision, call Agent(subagent_type="<plugin>:<agent>") with the finding class, the finding source reference, and a fix-PR-title hint. Wait for the agent's report. Never perform the specialist remediation inline.

  7. Record every dispatch. For each dispatched specialist, the eventual fix PR MUST include in its Risk / rollout notes the two MUST-fields from spec/project/continuous-improvement/<canonical_language>.md §"Traceability in remediation artifacts", written with these exact field labels so they are grep-stable across the portfolio:

  8. Originating source: <named finding source> — the originating finding source by name and, where available, link.

  9. Dispatched specialist: <subagent_type or skill name> — the dispatched specialist literal, or the explicit note Dispatched specialist: no matching specialist existed — generalist handled when none matched. Append these two lines verbatim to a ## Decisions entry in the triage artifact immediately after dispatch, so the triage record and the fix PR carry identical text.

  10. Gap-closure authoring. When a new specialist is authored via claude-plugin-developer, record the decision in ## Decisions with the gap-closure justification (three-recurrence threshold, or explicit high-impact rationale for pre-threshold creation). The fix PR for the new specialist itself MUST carry the high-impact justification if created before the threshold.

  11. Cross-repository promotion check. If the same finding class has been observed in two or more repositories, remind the user that the spec requires plugin distribution for any specialist created in response; do not close the gap-closure decision until the distribution: plugin requirement is confirmed.

3. close

Terminate the triage cycle after all decisions are recorded.

  1. Verify completeness. Confirm every finding in ## Findings carries a decision: dispatched / deferred-with-reason / gap-closure-initiated. Findings with no decision block closing; prompt the user for each.

  2. Verify fix PRs carry the audit trail. For each dispatched finding, run gh pr view <number> --json body and confirm the Risk / rollout notes section contains both the Originating source: and Dispatched specialist: lines. If either is missing, block closing and prompt the user to amend the PR before proceeding.

  3. Flip status to closed. Update the triage artifact's frontmatter: set status: closed, append a closed entry to ## Processing log with the date and a one-line summary (number of findings, dispatched / deferred / gap-closure counts).

  4. Report back. Return: triage artifact path, finding counts by disposition, any outstanding gap-closure PRs, and the next-review date (today + 90 days, rounded to the nearest calendar quarter boundary).

Examples

  • Read examples/01-quarterly-specialist-coverage-review.md when performing the full quarterly audit and dispatching findings to specialised agents.
  • Read examples/02-three-recurrence-finding.md when a finding class has hit the three-recurrence threshold and requires gap-closure action.
  • Read examples/03-cycle-close.md when closing a completed triage cycle after all decisions are recorded.

Gotchas

  • Partial spec-drift-audit runs do NOT suppress the quarterly coverage review. The spec explicitly states that partial-audit narrowing applies to drift, not to coverage. If a narrowed drift audit has already happened this quarter without a coverage section, the quarterly review is still due—and the omission is itself a finding for the next audit cycle.
  • Sprint-review closure is not a substitute. A successfully closed sprint does not satisfy the quarterly specialist-coverage review. Both cadences are independently mandatory per the spec's §Relationship to existing specs.
  • Three-recurrence count is per finding class, not per repository. Count generalist-handled occurrences across the whole portfolio. Two recurrences in one repo plus one in another equals three—the threshold is met and plugin distribution is required for any new specialist.
  • Missing audit trail is a finding. A merged remediation PR that lacks the required Risk / rollout notes fields is not merely a documentation gap; the spec defines it as an in-scope finding to be recorded and remediated in the next cycle.
  • Pre-threshold early creation requires an explicit justification. A specialist created before the three-recurrence threshold is valid only when the authoring PR records a high-impact justification (security, release-blocker, or correctness regression). An early-creation without that note is a spec violation—not a saved effort.

Resumability

Per spec/claude/resumable-work/, this skill is resumable: true. State is persisted to .resume/continuous-improvement-triage/<run-id>.yml after every successful user-approval gate and after each named phase boundary. On re-invocation, scan that directory for files with status: in_progress whose inputs: snapshot matches the current invocation; if one matches, prompt the operator with Resume run <run_id> from phase <phase> (last checkpoint <last_checkpoint_at>)? [resume / start-new / discard]. The state-file envelope (schema_version, run_id, inputs, phase, decisions[], status, ...) and the fail-closed semantics on schema or YAML errors are load-bearing in the spec; don't duplicate those rules here.

Hard rules

  • Never perform specialist remediation inline when a matching specialist exists; classify, dispatch, verify.
  • Never record a gap-closure decision as "no action needed" when the three-recurrence threshold is met; the spec's MUST applies.
  • Never close a triage cycle while any finding is still undecided; every finding must carry dispatched / deferred-with-reason / gap-closure-initiated.
  • Never let a fix PR merge without the two required Risk / rollout notes fields: Originating source: and Dispatched specialist: (the latter naming the specialist or the explicit no matching specialist existed — generalist handled).
  • Never collapse multiple unrelated findings into a single remediation PR; one PR per finding class (same-class grouping is allowed when the fix is genuinely atomic).
  • Never use this skill to weaken another spec—a finding whose remediation would require violating another spec is an Open Question, not a shortcut.
  • Always prefer a plugin-distributed specialist over a project-local one when the finding class has been observed in two or more repositories.
  • When spec/project/continuous-improvement/ and this skill disagree, the spec wins.

Multi-model testing

Examples and operations in this skill are verified on Claude Sonnet 4.6 as the default model; spot-checked on Haiku 4.5 for cost-sensitive quarterly runs; Opus 4.7 is appropriate for high-stakes audits involving security or release-blocker findings that require deeper reasoning. The skill body has no model-specific assumptions beyond standard tool-call semantics.