playbook/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/yao-meta-skill/references/governance.md

135 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown

# Governance Model
This project treats important skills as governed assets rather than one-shot prompt files.
## Goals
- keep shared skills trustworthy over time
- make ownership explicit
- avoid stale or oversized skill packages
- define when a skill should evolve, split, or retire
## Required Governance Metadata
For reusable or library-grade skills, `manifest.json` should include:
- `name`
- `version`
- `owner`
- `updated_at`
- `review_cadence`
- `status`
- `maturity_tier`
- `lifecycle_stage`
## Allowed Values
### `status`
- `experimental`
- `active`
- `deprecated`
### `maturity_tier`
- `scaffold`
- `production`
- `library`
- `governed`
### `lifecycle_stage`
- `scaffold`
- `production`
- `library`
- `governed`
### `review_cadence`
- `monthly`
- `quarterly`
- `semiannual`
- `annual`
- `per-release`
## Governance Rules
### 1. Owner Required
Any skill meant for reuse must have a named owner or owning team.
### 2. Review Cadence Required
If a skill is shared, it must declare how often it should be reviewed.
### 3. Maturity Should Match Rigor
- `scaffold`: lightweight, personal, low-governance
- `production`: reusable team skill with validation
- `library`: curated shared skill with explicit packaging and evals
- `governed`: critical or meta-level skill with regression, maintenance, and review expectations
### 4. Deprecated Skills Need Explicit Intent
Deprecated skills should include a deprecation note or replacement reference in adjacent documentation or manifest extensions.
### 5. Drift Must Be Observable
Important skills should keep:
- a regression history
- visible evaluation results
- known anti-patterns or failure modes
## Governance Actions
Use governance review to decide whether a skill should:
- stay as-is
- tighten trigger boundaries
- split into sibling skills
- move detail into `references/`
- move brittle logic into `scripts/`
- be deprecated or replaced
## Governance Maturity Scoring
`scripts/governance_check.py` also computes a maturity score out of `100`.
### Score Buckets
The governance checker computes a score band in addition to the declared manifest tier. The score band is a diagnostic output, not a replacement for the declared lifecycle tier.
- `90-100`: governed
- `80-89`: production
- `65-79`: reusable
- `45-64`: emerging
- `<45`: draft
### Recommended Minimums For Declared Tiers
- `scaffold`: no hard minimum
- `production`: `80`
- `library`: `85`
- `governed`: `90`
### Score Dimensions
- metadata integrity
- ownership and review cadence
- boundary and eval evidence
- operational assets
- maintenance evidence
The score is not a replacement for human review. It is a fast signal that a shared skill is structured enough to be trusted, maintained, and audited. `scripts/governance_check.py` warns when a declared tier claims more rigor than the score currently supports.
## Why This Matters
Most skill systems stop at creation. World-class skill systems also manage:
- ownership
- drift
- maturity
- deprecation
- evidence of ongoing quality