readout

Erstelle ein poliertes, in sich geschlossenes HTML-"readout"-Dokument unter ~/.readouts (mit einer automatisch gepflegten Indexseite), entweder durch Aufnahme der in der aktuellen Konversation gesammelten Erkenntnisse oder – bei frischem Aufruf, z. B. "/readout on how github webhook events are processed" – durch Schärfung des Umfangs mit klärenden Fragen und Recherche der Codebasis vor der Dokumentation. Die Arbeit läuft in einem untergeordneten Agenten, sodass der Kontext der Hauptkonversation sauber bleibt. Verwende, wenn der Benutzer /readout aufruft, sagt...

npx skills add https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skills --skill readout

Readout

A readout turns an investigation into a durable HTML document someone can read weeks later without any of the original context. It starts one of two ways:

  • Snapshot mode — invoked mid-conversation ("write this up"): the conversation's accumulated findings are the source material.
  • Research mode — invoked fresh ("/readout on how github webhook events are processed in the server"): there is no conversation to mine, so the investigation itself is part of the job.

Either way, invoking this skill is a side task. Your job as the main agent is to sharpen the scope, launch a child agent with a good brief, and get out of the way — the child does the mining/research and the writing, keeping that (often large) work out of your context window.

Orchestrator workflow

1. Sharpen the scope — ask before launching

A vague brief produces a vague document. Before launching you should be able to list the specific questions the document will answer; if you can't, interview the user first:

  • Ask 2–4 targeted questions, offering concrete options rather than open prompts — take a quick look at the code or topic first so the options are real (subsystems, entry points, competing concerns). For "/readout on how github webhook events are processed": which direction matters — inbound triggers, post-back, or both? a current-state reference or a gotcha hunt? which repo(s)?
  • Always pin down depth and audience: high-level orientation vs. deep mechanics with line-level grounding; personal notes vs. shared with the team.
  • Respect a shrug. "Just a high-level overview" is a valid answer — record it in the brief and move on rather than interrogating. Even then, try to extract the two or three questions the reader most needs answered; specificity is what makes a readout useful.
  • Skip the interview when the scope is already specific — a snapshot of a focused conversation, or a precise research request, needs no questions. In snapshot mode the conversation usually supplies the questions; ask only when the invocation is ambiguous about which threads to include.

2. Compose the brief

Write a short brief (roughly 10–20 lines) carrying pointers, not payloads:

  • A working title / topic, and the mode (snapshot or research)
  • The specific questions the document must answer (from the conversation or the interview), plus depth and audience
  • Scope: which threads/subsystems to cover, and anything to explicitly exclude
  • Snapshot mode: headline conclusions worth centering the doc on, one line each — the child pulls the full content from conversation history itself, so don't paste findings wholesale
  • Research mode: starting pointers — entry-point files, symbols, or directories you already know about
  • Absolute paths to the repos/directories that ground the work
  • Each repo's hosted URL and the examined commit when known (e.g. github.com/org/repo @ abc123), so the document can hyperlink code references

3. Launch one local child agent

Spawn exactly one child agent via run_agents, local execution. Local matters: the document lands on the user's filesystem and opens in their browser. Name the child readout-<topic-slug>.

Build the child's prompt from the template below. It must include:

  • The brief
  • The source-material block matching the mode (snapshot mode also needs your agent run ID — current_run_id from the orchestration runtime context — so the child can mine the parent conversation with search_conversation_history)
  • The instruction to read references/doc-guide.md from this skill's directory before writing
  • The output path convention and completion protocol

4. Get back to work

After launching, resume whatever you were doing, or end your turn — the child's completion message arrives on its own; relay the file path to the user with a one-line description when it does. In research mode a fresh conversation may have nothing else pending; just end the turn. Don't sit in a wait loop unless the user asked to wait for the document.

Child agent prompt template

Adapt this; keep the structure, and include the source-material block that matches the mode.

You are producing a "readout": a single self-contained HTML document that answers a
specific set of questions about <topic>, for a reader who has none of this context.

Brief:
<brief — including the questions to answer, depth, and audience>

Source material (snapshot mode):
- The parent conversation: agent run ID <current_run_id>. Use search_conversation_history
  with agent_run_id set to that ID. Make several targeted queries — one per question in
  the brief — rather than one broad query; targeted queries surface far more usable detail.
- The codebase(s) at <absolute paths>. The conversation is your starting point, not a cage:
  verify file references before asserting them, and where a section needs more depth to
  stand on its own, go read the code and fill the gap.

Source material (research mode):
- Investigate directly in the codebase(s) at <absolute paths>. Let the brief's questions
  drive the investigation: trace the actual code paths, read the real implementations, and
  ground every claim in file:line references. Distinguish verified from inferred. Do not
  pad the document with generic knowledge — its value is what's true of THIS codebase.

- Repo host + commit for linked code references, if known: <github.com/org/repo @ commit>
  (otherwise derive from git; see the doc guide's "Linked code references").

Start from the canonical template at <skill-directory>/assets/template.html — its
data-readout chrome blocks must be copied verbatim so every readout looks like every
other. Before writing, read <skill-directory>/references/doc-guide.md and follow it.

Output:
- Write ONE self-contained HTML file to ~/.readouts/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<topic-slug>.html
  (create ~/.readouts if it doesn't exist; suffix -2, -3, ... if the name is taken;
  get the date from `date +%F`).
- Embed referenced source per the doc guide when a repo is checked out
  (<skill-directory>/scripts/embed_snippets.py).
- Refresh the readouts index: python3 <skill-directory>/scripts/update_index.py
  (fully regenerates ~/.readouts/index.html listing every readout).
- When the file is written, open it with `open <path>` (skip this if the environment is
  headless).
- Report back to your orchestrator: the absolute file path, a 2–3 sentence summary of what
  the document covers, and anything you could not verify.

Fallbacks

  • Child spawning unavailable or denied: produce the document yourself, following references/doc-guide.md. If a research subagent is available, delegate the conversation-mining or code investigation to it so your context still stays lean.
  • Child can't search conversation history (snapshot mode; it will report this back): reply to the child with a distilled dump of the findings so it can proceed — this is the one case where payload-in-prompt is the right call.
  • User-provided material instead of a conversation (transcripts, files, links): treat that material as the source; everything else in the workflow is unchanged.

Mehr Skills von warpdotdev

council
warpdotdev
Führe einen modell-diversen Unteragenten-Rat durch, um dasselbe Problem aus mehreren Perspektiven zu untersuchen, Ergebnisse zu vergleichen und eine abschließende Empfehlung zu erstellen. Verwende diese Fähigkeit, wenn der Nutzer nach einem Rat, Zweitmeinungen, mehreren Agenten/Modellen zur Bewertung einer Frage, paralleler Untersuchung, Red-Team/Blue-Team-Vergleich oder Hilfe bei der Entscheidung zwischen konkurrierenden technischen Ansätzen fragt.
researchcommunicationproject-management
spec-driven-implementation
warpdotdev
Treibe einen spezifikationsgesteuerten Workflow für umfangreiche Features voran, indem du vor der Implementierung eine PRODUCT.md schreibst, bei Bedarf eine TECH.md erstellst und beide Spezifikationen während der Implementierung aktuell hältst. Verwende dies, wenn du ein bedeutendes Feature beginnst, eine agentengesteuerte Implementierung planst oder der Benutzer wünscht, dass Produkt- und technische Spezifikationen in die Versionskontrolle aufgenommen werden.
developmentdocumentproject-management
review-pr
warpdotdev
Überprüfe ein Pull-Request-Diff und schreibe strukturiertes Feedback in review.json, das der Workflow veröffentlichen kann. Verwende dies, wenn ein ausgecheckter PR aus lokalen Artefakten wie pr_diff.txt und pr_description.txt überprüft wird und maschinenlesbare Review-Ausgabe erstellt werden soll, anstatt direkt auf GitHub zu posten.
code-reviewdevelopment
create-pr
warpdotdev
Erstelle einen Pull-Request im warp-Repository für den aktuellen Branch. Verwende, wenn der Benutzer das Öffnen eines PRs, das Erstellen eines Pull-Requests, das Einreichen von Änderungen zur Überprüfung oder das Vorbereiten von Code für den Merge erwähnt.
developmentcode-review
implement-specs
warpdotdev
Implementieren Sie eine genehmigte Funktion aus PRODUCT.md und TECH.md, wobei Spezifikationen und Code im selben PR abgestimmt bleiben, während die Implementierung voranschreitet. Verwenden Sie dies, nachdem die Produkt- und technischen Spezifikationen genehmigt wurden und der nächste Schritt die Entwicklung der Funktion ist.
developmentcode-reviewapi
cross-critique
warpdotdev
Führe eine zweite Runde zu einer strittigen Frage durch, indem du die unabhängigen Vorschläge jedes Unteragenten an die anderen Autoren weiterleitest und um strukturierte Vor- und Nachteile bittest, um sie dann zu synthetisieren. Verwende diese Fähigkeit, wenn du mehrere unabhängige Vorschläge oder Meinungen zu einer strittigen Entscheidung hast – Architekturkompromisse, Code-Review-Meinungsverschiedenheiten, Designentscheidungen, konkurrierende Ursachentheorien – und eine schärfere Analyse wünschst, als du durch alleinige Synthese erzielen würdest. Ergänzt sich natürlich mit den Fähigkeiten council und research;...
resolve-merge-conflicts
warpdotdev
Resolve Git merge conflicts by extracting only unresolved paths, conflict hunks, and compact diffs instead of loading whole files into context. Use when a merge, rebase, cherry-pick, or stash pop stops on conflicts, when `git status` shows unmerged paths, or when files contain conflict markers.
developmentcode-review
brandalf
warpdotdev
Leitet die Erstellung, Überarbeitung und Prüfung von Warp- oder Oz-Marken-Assets. Verwenden Sie dies bei der Arbeit an Launch-Seiten, Dokumentationen, HTML/CSS-Komponenten, UI-Mockups, Prompts, Social-Media-Assets, Texten, Präsentationen oder anderen markengebundenen Ergebnissen, die unverkennbar wie Warp oder Oz aussehen und klingen sollen.
designcreativemarketing