" --body "$(cat <<'EOF' ## Summary <2-3 bullets of what changed> ## Test Plan - [ ] <verification steps> EOF )" ``` #### Option 2: Keep As-Is Report: "Keeping branch <name>." ## Common Mistakes **Skipping test verification** - **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR - **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options **Open-ended questions** - **Problem:** "What should I do next?" → ambiguous - **Fix:** Present exactly 2 structured options **Noisy reflections** - **Problem:** Proposing too many trivial or already-documented learnings - **Fix:** Only propose actionable, project-specific patterns not already in CLAUDE.md ## Red Flags **Never:** - Proceed with failing tests - Merge without verifying tests on result - Delete work without confirmation - Force-push without explicit request **Always:** - Verify tests before offering options - Skip reflection silently if no learnings to propose - Present exactly 2 options </article></body></html>

--- name: completing-work description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion by presenting structured options --- # Completing Work ## Overview Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow. **Core principle:** Verify tests → Reflect on learnings → Present options → Execute choice. **Announce at start:** "I'm using the completing-work skill to complete this work." ## The Process ### Step 1: Verify Tests **Before presenting options, verify tests pass:** ```bash # Run project's test suite npm test \/ cargo test \/ pytest \/ go test .\/... ``` **If tests fail:** ``` Tests failing ( failures). Must fix before completing: [Show failures] Cannot proceed with merge\/PR until tests pass. ``` Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2. **If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2. ### Step 2: Reflect on Learnings **If you have project-specific learnings from this session, present them for user approval.** **What to look for:** - Explicit corrections or guidance from the user during the session - Findings from spec-reviewer and code-quality-reviewer subagents - Friction points you figured out (build commands, test setup, file locations, naming conventions) - Patterns discovered in existing code that weren't documented **What makes a good reflection:** - Actionable for future sessions (not one-off fixes) - Project-specific (not general programming knowledge) - Concise enough to fit naturally in CLAUDE.md **What to exclude:** - User preferences (belong in user's global CLAUDE.md, not project CLAUDE.md) - Temporary workarounds or environment-specific quirks - Things already documented in the project **If you have learnings to propose:** Use `AskUserQuestion` with `multiSelect: true`: ``` AskUserQuestion( questions: [{ question: "Which learnings should be preserved in CLAUDE.md?", header: "Reflections", multiSelect: true, options: [ { label: "", description: " → " }, \/\/ ... more options ] }] ) ``` **Example:** ``` options: [ { label: "Build prereq", description: "Run `npm run build` before tests → ## Development" }, { label: "API naming", description: "Query params use snake_case → new ## API Conventions" } ] ``` **After user selects:** - If user selects any options → Update project CLAUDE.md, placing learnings in proposed sections - Commit: `docs(CLAUDE.md): ` - If user selects nothing → Skip, continue to Step 3 **If no learnings to propose:** Skip silently, continue to Step 3. ### Step 3: Present Options Present exactly these 2 options: ``` Implementation complete. What would you like to do? 1. Push and create a Pull Request 2. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later) Which option? ``` **Don't add explanation** - keep options concise. ### Step 4: Execute Choice #### Option 1: Push and Create PR ```bash # Push branch git push -u origin # Create PR in draft mode gh pr create --draft --title "" --body "$(cat <<'EOF' ## Summary <2-3 bullets of what changed> ## Test Plan - [ ] <verification steps> EOF )" ``` #### Option 2: Keep As-Is Report: "Keeping branch <name>." ## Common Mistakes **Skipping test verification** - **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR - **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options **Open-ended questions** - **Problem:** "What should I do next?" → ambiguous - **Fix:** Present exactly 2 structured options **Noisy reflections** - **Problem:** Proposing too many trivial or already-documented learnings - **Fix:** Only propose actionable, project-specific patterns not already in CLAUDE.md ## Red Flags **Never:** - Proceed with failing tests - Merge without verifying tests on result - Delete work without confirmation - Force-push without explicit request **Always:** - Verify tests before offering options - Skip reflection silently if no learnings to propose - Present exactly 2 options </article></body></html>