ship-it

Pre-launch operational-readiness checklist for a feature, release, or branch. Walks a fixed 10-category gate (logging, error handling, telemetry, feature flags, migrations, rollback, secrets, local-first storage, auth, update strategy), produces a structured report with PASS / GAP / N/A per item, every PASS backed by file:line evidence and every GAP cited as no evidence found at <path>. Final verdict groups findings as **Blocking** / **Should-fix** / **N/A with reason** / **Passing**. Use this skill whenever the user says "is this ready to ship?", "ship-it check", "/ship-it", "production checklist", "pre-launch checklist", "production readiness", "release readiness", "launch checklist", or asks whether a release is operationally safe — even if they don't explicitly say "ship-it skill". Use [code-review](../code-review/SKILL.md) for diff-level code quality (DRY, dead code, tests). Use ship-it for cross-cutting operational readiness. Never edits code unprompted — recommendation first, ask, then fix.

The operational gate I run before calling something done. Code review tells me the diff is clean; ship-it tells me the thing won't page me at 3am.

When to use this skill

• "is this ready to ship?" / "ship-it check" / "/ship-it"
• "production checklist" / "pre-launch checklist" / "production readiness" / "release readiness" / "launch checklist"
• "can we deploy this?" / "anything missing before we ship?"
• The user names a branch, PR, release tag, or module and asks whether it's safe to release.

Do not auto-trigger when the user is asking about diff-level code quality, DRY, dead code, or test coverage — that's code-review's job. If the trigger is ambiguous (e.g. bare "ready to ship?" with a working tree full of uncommitted edits), ask once whether they want the diff review or the operational checklist.

Hard rules

• Recommend, don't refactor. This is an audit. Never edit code unprompted. After the report, ask per-blocker whether the user wants a fix drafted.
• Evidence is mandatory. Every PASS must cite file:line. "I checked, it looks fine" is not a PASS — that's a GAP labelled couldn't verify.
• Name the probe. Every PASS also names the exact check that produced its evidence — the grep pattern + path, the file you read, or the command you ran. If you didn't run a probe for an item, it's GAP labelled not checked — never PASS. A result you didn't observe doesn't exist.
• N/A needs a reason grounded in the scope. The justification must derive from an observed fact about this scope, with the probe that established it (e.g. "no files under migrations/ in the diff (git diff --stat) → migrations N/A") — never a guess from the project type. Don't fabricate gaps for categories that don't apply.
• Stay in your lane. Don't re-do code-review's work. If the user asks about DRY / dead code / test coverage, defer.

Workflow

Phase 1 — Name the unit being shipped

Don't proceed until scope is named. Ask the user with AskUserQuestion if it isn't obvious:

• A specific PR / branch? → git diff against the base; scope the audit to changed files + their direct call graph.
• A feature flag? → grep the flag key; scope to gated code paths.
• A release tag / version bump? → git diff <prev-tag>..HEAD.
• A module / directory? → scope to that path.

Echo the scope back in one line before starting Phase 2 ("Auditing branch feat/billing-v2 against base main — 14 files changed.").

Phase 2 — Walk the 10 categories

For each category: state the criterion in one line, search the codebase for evidence, mark PASS / GAP / N/A. Use Grep and Read aggressively; spawn an Explore sub-agent for any category where the search would take more than 3 queries.

Record each probe as you run it — the report cites them. A probe is a specific Grep pattern + path, a Read of a named file, or a command with its observed output. A sub-agent's result counts as a probe only if the sub-agent names its own probes and citations; "the agent said it's fine" is not evidence. Where a check depends on the user (dashboards, runbooks, rollout plans), record their answer as the probe ("user confirmed: alert added to Grafana billing board") — an unanswered question stays GAP.

1. Logging

What good looks like: Structured logs (JSON or key=value), correlation / request IDs propagated, levels used correctly (error ≠ info), no secrets / tokens / PII in log output, errors logged with stack + context, not just the message.

How to check: Grep for the logger import and inspect call sites in changed files. Confirm a request-ID middleware exists upstream and that the new code paths inherit it. Grep for known secret-shaped variables being passed to log calls.

2. Error handling

What good looks like: Each failure mode named (network, validation, auth, downstream 5xx), no catch {} / except: pass / _ = ... silent swallows, user-facing errors mapped to safe messages, retry / backoff on external-boundary calls (HTTP, DB, queues).

How to check: Grep for empty catches, bare except, error-swallowing patterns. Trace each new external call to see how failures propagate. Confirm idempotency where retries exist.

3. Telemetry

What good looks like: New code paths emit metrics (counts, latencies, error rates), traces propagate (OpenTelemetry / equivalent context passed through), dashboards / alerts updated to include the new signal.

How to check: Grep for the metrics client in changed files. Confirm at least one counter and one latency histogram per significant code path. Ask the user whether the dashboards / alerts were updated — that's usually out-of-tree.

4. Feature flags

What good looks like: New behavior gated behind a flag with a clear owner, documented default state for prod (almost always off), and a written ramp / cleanup plan (when does the flag get removed?).

How to check: Grep for the flag client; confirm new branches are gated. Read the flag definition file / dashboard config for owner + default. Ask the user for the cleanup plan if it isn't in the PR description.

5. Migrations

What good looks like: Forward-compatible — the deployed code tolerates BOTH old and new schema for at least one release. Backfill plan named if columns are added. Runtime estimated against prod-size data (not just dev).

How to check: Read the migration files. Look for ALTER TABLE against large tables — flag any that take exclusive locks. Confirm the matching code reads column ?? fallback rather than assuming the new shape exists. Ask about backfill strategy.

6. Rollback strategy

What good looks like: The change can be reverted by redeploying the previous artifact. Flag-on / flag-off is the rollback path where possible. Migrations are split from code deploys so revert never requires a DB rollback. There's a one-liner in the runbook.

How to check: Look for the runbook entry. Confirm migrations were merged in a separate commit / PR from the feature code (the "expand / migrate / contract" pattern). If a migration is destructive (DROP, NOT NULL added) call it out as blocking unless a rollback plan exists.

7. Secrets

What good looks like: No secrets in code, config files, or logs. Rotation path documented. New env vars added to the secret store (Vault / AWS SM / Doppler / etc.), not just .env.example.

How to check: Grep changed files for high-entropy strings, common key shapes (AKIA…, sk_live_, xoxb-), and .env* diffs. Confirm any new env var also exists in the secret-store config (Terraform / Helm values / etc.).

8. Local-first storage (skip with N/A for pure server services)

What good looks like: Offline behavior defined (queue + replay, or fail-fast), conflict resolution rule named for sync (last-writer-wins, CRDT, merge UI), schema version in the local DB, migration handles users upgrading from an older client.

How to check: Find the local store (IndexedDB / SQLite / Realm / AsyncStorage). Read its schema-version handling and migration code. If the PR changes the local schema, confirm the upgrade path exists.

9. Auth

What good looks like: New endpoints / screens have authorization checks (not just authentication), tenant / org scoping enforced server-side (never trust client-sent IDs), no IDOR — GET /orders/:id verifies the order belongs to the caller — session / token handling unchanged or explicitly reviewed.

How to check: For each new route, read the handler top-to-bottom. Confirm: caller identity comes from the session, the resource is loaded scoped to that identity, no where: { id: req.params.id } without a tenant predicate. Missing authz on a new route is blocking.

10. Update strategy

What good looks like: How users get the new version is named and tested.

• Web: deploy + cache-bust (hashed assets, SW update flow if applicable).
• Desktop (Tauri / Electron): auto-update channel signed and pointed at the right manifest.
• Mobile: store review window accounted for, forced-update path for breaking API changes.
• CLI / SDK: version pinning respected, breaking changes major-bumped.

How to check: Identify the artifact type and ask the user how the rollout happens. For desktop, read the updater config. For mobile + breaking changes, confirm there's a min-version-supported check on the backend.

Phase 3 — Produce the report

Group findings into four buckets. Order matters — blocking first.

markdown

# Ship-It Report — <scope>

## Blocking
- **<category>:** <one-line problem> — `<file:line>` or `no evidence found at <path>`

## Should-fix (non-blocking)
- **<category>:** <one-line problem> — `<file:line>`

## N/A
- **<category>:** <one-line reason grounded in the scope> (probe: `<what established it>`)

## Passing
- **<category>:** <one-line evidence> — `<file:line>` (probe: `<grep pattern / file read / command>`)

Same PASS, written badly and well:

• ❌ **Logging:** structured logging in place — src/billing/ — no line, no probe; unverifiable, could have been written without looking.
• ✅ **Logging:** new invoice paths log via structured logger with request ID — src/billing/invoice.ts:31 (probe: grep -n "logger\." src/billing/ → 6 call sites, all pass ctx.reqId) — anyone can rerun the probe and land on the same line.

Blocking = any one of:

• Secrets in code / logs / committed config.
• Missing authz on a new endpoint or screen.
• Destructive migration with no rollback plan.
• No way to disable the new behavior in prod (no flag, no quick revert).
• Update strategy genuinely absent for the artifact type.

Everything else is should-fix.

Phase 4 — Offer to fix

After the report, ask: "Want me to draft fixes for the blocking items, or stop at the report?" Wait for explicit go-ahead before editing.

Examples

Example 1: PR-scoped audit

User: "is this ready to ship?" (currently on branch feat/billing-v2 with an open PR)

Claude:

1. Echoes scope: "Auditing feat/billing-v2 against main — 14 files changed."
2. Walks the 10 categories, citing file:line per finding and the probe that produced it.
3. Reports: 2 blocking (missing authz on POST /api/v2/invoices — no tenant predicate in routes/invoices.ts:24-51, read top-to-bottom; no rollback for the currency_code NOT NULL migration), 4 should-fix, 1 N/A (local-first storage — "no client-side store in scope: grep -rl 'localStorage\|indexedDB' src/billing/ → 0 hits, server-only module"), 3 passing with probes named.
4. Asks whether to draft fixes for the blockers.

Example 2: Module-scoped audit

User: "ship-it check on the billing module"

Claude:

1. Scopes to src/billing/** (confirms the path exists first).
2. Skips the "diff vs base" framing — runs the 10 categories against the module's current state.
3. Marks update-strategy as N/A ("module is consumed by the web app's update flow — covered there, not here") with a pointer to where it IS covered.

Example 3: Anti-pattern — wrong skill

User: "review my diff"

Claude: "That's code-review's territory — diff-level quality, DRY, tests. ship-it is for the operational gate (logging, flags, migrations, rollback, auth, etc.). Want me to run code-review instead, or did you mean the operational checklist?"

Anti-patterns

• ❌ Marking a category PASS without a file:line citation. "Looks fine" is a GAP labelled couldn't verify.
• ❌ PASS on vibes — a PASS with no named probe (the grep / read / command that produced the evidence) is a GAP labelled not checked.
• ❌ N/A from a guess about the project type. Derive it from the scope and name the probe: "no schema files in this diff (git diff --stat) → migrations N/A".
• ❌ Inventing GAPs in N/A categories. A server-only service genuinely has no local-first storage layer — say so and move on.
• ❌ Reviewing diff quality (DRY, dead code, missing tests) under the ship-it banner. Defer to code-review.
• ❌ Editing code mid-audit. The report comes first, then the user picks what to fix.
• ❌ Blocking on every missing dashboard or runbook entry. Telemetry without a dashboard is should-fix. Telemetry with secrets in the log line is blocking. Calibrate.
• ❌ Letting Phase 1 slide. Auditing "the whole repo" produces unactionable output. Force a scope.

Notes

• Categories 1–7 + 9 apply to almost any service. Category 8 (local-first storage) is N/A for pure server work. Category 10 (update strategy) is where most teams underinvest — push on it.
• The 10-category list is deliberately fixed. Don't extend it ad-hoc — if you find yourself wanting to add "performance" or "i18n" as a category, that's a separate skill or a should-fix entry under the closest existing category.
• Pairs well with code-review (run code-review first for diff quality, then ship-it for operational readiness) and handoff (capture the report as the next-session pointer if shipping is deferred).