Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: /llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
The five render targets the skills fill in — what each section captures.
templates/ and get filled into .shipflow/{id}/ (or a PR body) by the phase
that owns them. All five ship with {placeholder} markers and HTML-comment guidance inline — this
page describes what each section is for, not a copy of the placeholder text itself.
context.md → feature-context| Section | Captures |
|---|---|
| Header | Work item id, provider, state, whether product.md was read, likely-touched repos, links |
| Change type | New feature (omitted) vs. rework — an ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED delta against current behavior |
| Requirement | The verbatim description — never paraphrased away |
| Acceptance criteria | Normalized, numbered AC1, AC2, … — table of criterion + how it’ll be proven |
| Local grounding | Likely code area, conventions to match, test-framework signals, repo instruction files found |
| Per-repo grounding | Polyrepo only — which repos and why, per repo |
| Clarifications needed | Specific open questions, batched into one round — never resolved by assumption |
| Link-back | The reference that must land in commits, PR title, and PR body |
plan.md → feature-plan| Section | Captures |
|---|---|
| Approach | The chosen design, grounded in the codebase and product.md; rejected alternatives noted |
| Repos touched | Polyrepo only — which configured repos actually get a branch + PR, and why |
| Files to touch | Real paths, each with a one-line reason |
| Impact analysis | Callers/consumers of the touched surface, existing tests, cross-cutting concerns from product.md/CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md |
| Tasks → ACs | Every task tagged with its repo (polyrepo) and the AC(s) it satisfies |
| Test strategy | Framework/command and how each AC becomes a test |
| Risks / unknowns | Blast radius, migrations, anything that could make the work bigger than it looks |
| Out of scope | What’s explicitly not being done — makes scope creep easy to spot at verify time |
pr-body.md → feature-pr| Section | Captures |
|---|---|
| Summary | What changed in this repo and why, with the link-back reference |
| Sibling PRs | Polyrepo only — “Part of {ref}” block cross-linking the other touched repos’ PRs |
| Acceptance criteria | Checklist with each item’s verify status; sibling-owned ACs noted with a pointer, not duplicated |
| Tests | Command run, pass/fail counts, AC → test traceability |
| Notes for the reviewer | Intentional scope, risks/follow-ups carried from the plan |
product.md → product-contextrepair.md → feature-repair| Section | Captures |
|---|---|
| Header | Which NOT READY verdict this repairs, and the attempt number |
| Gaps being closed | Only the PARTIAL/MISSING ACs verify cited, with its own evidence copied verbatim |
| Fix tasks | Small, one-commit-sized tasks, same “name real paths” discipline as plan.md |
| Out of scope | Every already-MET AC — explicitly untouched |
| Result | Filled after the fix loop: repaired ACs, commits, new test result, new verify verdict |