readout

Produce a polished, self-contained HTML "readout" document under ~/.readouts (with an auto-maintained index page), either by snapshotting the findings accumulated in the current conversation or — when invoked fresh, e.g. "/readout on how github webhook events are processed" — by sharpening scope with clarifying questions and researching the codebase before documenting. The work runs in a child agent so the main conversation's context stays clean. Use whenever the user invokes /readout, says...

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.

Thêm skills từ warpdotdev

council
warpdotdev
Chạy một hội đồng phụ trợ đa dạng mô hình để điều tra cùng một vấn đề từ nhiều góc nhìn, so sánh các phát hiện và đưa ra khuyến nghị cuối cùng. Sử dụng kỹ năng này bất cứ khi nào người dùng yêu cầu một hội đồng, ý kiến thứ hai, nhiều tác nhân/mô hình để đánh giá một câu hỏi, điều tra song song, so sánh đội đỏ/đội xanh, hoặc trợ giúp quyết định giữa các phương pháp kỹ thuật cạnh tranh.
researchcommunicationproject-management
spec-driven-implementation
warpdotdev
Thúc đẩy quy trình làm việc theo hướng đặc tả trước cho các tính năng lớn bằng cách viết PRODUCT.md trước khi triển khai, viết TECH.md khi cần thiết, và cập nhật cả hai đặc tả khi quá trình triển khai phát triển. Sử dụng khi bắt đầu một tính năng quan trọng, lên kế hoạch triển khai do tác nhân điều khiển, hoặc khi người dùng muốn kiểm tra các đặc tả sản phẩm và kỹ thuật vào hệ thống quản lý mã nguồn.
developmentdocumentproject-management
review-pr
warpdotdev
Xem xét diff của pull request và viết phản hồi có cấu trúc vào review.json để quy trình làm việc xuất bản. Sử dụng khi xem xét một PR đã checkout từ các tạo phẩm cục bộ như pr_diff.txt và pr_description.txt và tạo đầu ra đánh giá có thể đọc bằng máy thay vì đăng trực tiếp lên GitHub.
code-reviewdevelopment
create-pr
warpdotdev
Tạo một pull request trong kho lưu trữ warp cho nhánh hiện tại. S
developmentcode-review
implement-specs
warpdotdev
Triển khai một tính năng đã được phê duyệt từ PRODUCT.md và TECH.md, giữ cho đặc tả và mã nguồn luôn đồng bộ trong cùng một PR khi quá trình triển khai tiến triển. Sử dụng sau khi đặc tả sản phẩm và kỹ thuật đã được phê duyệt và bước tiếp theo là xây dựng tính năng.
developmentcode-reviewapi
cross-critique
warpdotdev
We need to translate the given text from English to Vietnamese. The text is a description of a skill called "cross-critique". The instruction says to preserve the name "cross-critique" if it appears in the source text. It does appear: "cross-critique" is in the skill name at the top, but the instruction says "Do not include the name unless it appears in the source text." The source text inside <text> does not contain the name "cross-critique" explicitly; it only says "this skill" at the end. So we should not add the name. We just translate the text. The text: "Run a second round on a contested question by circulating each subagent's independent proposal to the other authors and asking for structured pros and cons, then synthesize. Use this skill whenever you have multiple independent proposals or opinions on a contested decision — architecture tradeoffs, code review disagreements, design choices, competing root-cause theories — and want sharper analysis than you'd produce by synthesizing alone. Pairs naturally with the council and research skills;
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
Hướng dẫn tạo, chỉnh sửa và xem xét các tài sản mang thương hiệu Warp hoặc Oz. Sử dụng khi làm việc trên các trang ra mắt, tài liệu, thành phần HTML/CSS, mô phỏng giao diện người dùng, lời nhắc, tài sản truyền thông xã hội, nội dung quảng cáo, bài thuyết trình hoặc bất kỳ sản phẩm có thương hiệu nào khác cần trông và nghe rõ ràng là của Warp hoặc Oz.
designcreativemarketing