About launch-readiness-review
A skill for teams deciding whether a specific release candidate is ready to launch, using evidence to reach a proportional decision. It consolidates cross-domain gates, ownership, and recovery plans, and requires live verification of the released candidate.
Key features
- 01Verify candidate identity and evidence
- 02Classify applicable launch gates
- 03Record blockers, owners, and deadlines
- 04Plan canaries, rollback, and recovery drills
- 05Define launch monitoring and issue a verdict
Use cases
- 01Review launch admission for a high-impact release
- 02Set monitoring and pause conditions for a staged rollout
- 03Check evidence for migrations, rollback, and recovery
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
npx skills add https:/ / github.com/ sylphxai/ skills --skill launch-readiness-reviewAfter installing, type/launch-readiness-reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Bundled files
References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.
agents/openai.yamlreferences/launch-readiness-patterns.mdrelease-health-watch.mdDetails
From the project READMELaunch Readiness Review
Produce a Launch Admission Record that makes a proportional release decision from exact evidence rather than a ceremonial checklist.
Atomic boundary
Own the final cross-domain evidence graph, blocker classification, decision, conditions, launch watch, authority, and recovery drill. Consume sibling facts by ID/version/digest; do not recreate product design, store submission, payment, marketing, security, or support artifacts.
Use the shared product artifact envelope when composing with repository product artifacts. Missing required evidence is a blocker or explicit handoff, never an invented pass. Do not require an envelope for a standalone review with no such upstream contract.
Resource guide
- Read
references/launch-readiness-patterns.mdfor proportional domain gates, decision classes, conditional-go exceptions, and recovery authority. - Read
references/release-health-watch.mdwhen the candidate needs a canary, staged rollout, release-health dashboard, first-week operating thresholds, or post-release closeout.
Workflow
- Identify exact commit/build/content/config/model/policy/migration digests, launch type, audiences/age modes, channels/territories, blast radius, decision owner, change window, and irreversible harm boundaries.
- Read the applicable references above. Select only gates applicable to the declared candidate, audience, channel, data, money, regulation, and blast radius. Record why a domain is applicable or not applicable.
- Classify each gate
pass,watch,blocked, ornot-applicable-with-proof. Separate construction, proof, exposure, and external authority. Do not turn an unknown into N/A. - Verify exact-candidate artifacts, provenance/signatures where applicable, canary/staged rollout, data/backward compatibility, migrations/replay, feature/config kill switches, rollback/forward-fix, derived-state/cache recovery, and restoration drills.
- Define the smallest launch watch appropriate to the risk: telemetry and countermetrics, alert ownership, exposure caps where useful, pause/withdraw, communications, and live readback. For staged or high-change releases, produce the release-health row schema, baseline/segment/sample rules, expansion/hold/rollback predicates, and closeout evidence.
- Issue
go,conditional-go,hold, orno-go. Every condition needs an owner, deadline, exact proof, and consequence; it is not a vague promise.
Source verification
Retrieve current platform/store, privacy/consent, accessibility, security, payment/refund, advertising/promotion, child/age, legal/regulated-category, regional, certification, and partner authority. External approval remains an explicit floor and may not be self-attested.
When not to use
- Use
product-lifecycle-architectto build the multi-domain program graph and produce the sibling artifacts, not merely decide one launch candidate. - Use
app-store-distribution-readinessfor channel submission, reviewer, certification, rollout, and live-store evidence. - Use
game-soft-launch-reviewfor a multi-cohort game learning/exposure program rather than final cross-domain admission. - Use a domain specialist when only one missing artifact is being designed or audited and the overall launch decision is not reopened.
Guardrails
- Marketing readiness never substitutes for product, authority, support, payment, migration, security, or recovery readiness.
- Do not call an open high-impact item “post-launch” without a bounded exposure, explicit risk acceptance authority, expiry, countermetric, and automatic stop.
- No launch of paid, personal-data, child, destructive, migration, or irreversible flows without authoritative state, support, compensation, and recovery.
- A green workflow exit is not live proof. Verify deployed/released identity and user-visible or telemetry readback.
- Do not add unrelated gates merely for checklist completeness; proportionality must never erase a requirement that is actually applicable.
Output contract
Return one typed Launch Admission Record with:
- exact candidate/authority identities, scope, audiences/channels, decision owner, change window, and ruin boundaries;
- dependency/evidence graph and pass/watch/blocked/N-A gate matrix;
- blocker records with owner, exact proof, deadline, and automatic consequence;
- canary/staged exposure, migration, rollback/forward-fix, cache/derived-state, and restoration drill evidence;
- proportionate launch watch, including any release-health dashboard rows, baseline/segment/sample rules, pause/withdraw, communication, and live-readback plan;
go | conditional-go | hold | no-goverdict with machine-readable reasons;- post-release live-readback and closeout evidence.
State unresolved external authority and manual decisions explicitly. Do not call the launch complete until the exact released candidate has live readback.