Release readiness
August 19, 2026 ยท View on GitHub
Use this loop before cutting a release candidate, promoting an evidence pack, or updating public readiness claims. It keeps the repo skill-first while making the trust layer easy to review.
Publication threshold
A user-facing skill is publication-ready only when the use lane, trust lane, human review, and repo validation all line up:
- Use lane:
SKILL.mdis install-compatible, the documented script path is runnable, and prompt-shaped evals or benchmark notes exist when they are part of the public story. - Trust lane:
skill_completeness_v1reports lifecyclepublished, or an explicit release exception records the remaining gap. A curated evidence pack or trusted-run anchor exists underexamples/evidence_packs/, implemented paired verifiers pass or warn with understood limits, and missing verifiers are planned gaps rather than accidental omissions. - Human review: a review packet renders the promoted evidence so verdict, gates, verifier coverage, provenance gaps, trace digest, artifacts, and limitations are readable without opening every JSON file first.
- Repo validation:
make verify-skillspasses. With-vs-without checks pass when the skill is part of that backend comparison story.make skill-evaluator-validateshould pass with the public SkillEvaluator external profile, or the unavailable preflight is recorded as a release gap. Managed NVSkills CI remains a separate PR gate.
Snapshot command
Run the no-network readiness snapshot:
make status-agent-skills
The target runs the strict skill audit, the with-vs-without harness tests, and the release status renderer. It answers:
- how many real targets are
published,verified,gated,runnable, ordraft - which lifecycle blockers should be inspected first
- whether blockers need trusted-run evidence, verifier evidence, or docs/eval artifacts
- whether with-vs-without prompt and study artifacts are complete
Use the strict gate before claiming completion:
make prove-agent-skills
make prove-with-vs-without
Current snapshot, 2026-05-26
Evidence from the local readiness run:
make status-agent-skills: statuscomplete; no network calls made.skill_completeness_v1: 33/33 real specs pass with 0 advisory issues.- Lifecycle counts:
published=33;verified=0,gated=0,runnable=0,draft=0for real targets. - Catalog split: 16 user-facing skills and 17 verifiers are published.
- The known
negative_sloppy_skillcalibration fixture fails as expected and is not counted as a real target. - With-vs-without: 7/7 covered
nv_*skills have complete prompt artifacts, complete study artifacts, and paired outcomes supporting SKILL.md advantage. - Pending external LLM calls: 0. Maximum possible repair calls: 0.
- Reviewed with-vs-without payload fingerprint:
a226c31aefa65f97a760ee97f3d90560ecda10cd409aed24fe8f4712d1354143. - SkillEvaluator is not part of this historical no-network snapshot. Run
make skill-evaluator-validatewith the public tool before claiming external publication-preflight readiness; do not present it as a managed NVSkills CI result.
There are no top lifecycle blockers in this snapshot. Review priority therefore moves from blocker cleanup to release-claim review and evidence-boundary review.
Candidate review order
For this snapshot, review these publication candidates before broad release claims because they cover the main artifact families and risk profiles:
dicom-series-preflightwithexamples/evidence_packs/dicom_series_preflight_trusted_pass/: GPU-free onboarding anchor with verifier coverage.dicom-series-to-volumewithexamples/evidence_packs/dicom_series_to_volume_trusted_pass/: DICOM to volume conversion anchor with artifact verifier coverage.nv-segment-ctwithexamples/evidence_packs/nv_segment_ct_trusted_pass/: CT segmentation anchor with anatomy plausibility verifier coverage.- Generated CT/MR skills with the
*_trusted_inventory_pass/anchors: trusted inventory evidence for generated outputs, with generated volumes referenced rather than bundled. nv-reason-cxrwithexamples/evidence_packs/nv_reason_cxr_trusted_mock_pass/: structured mock CXR reasoning evidence with image/hash binding and forbidden-phrase guards.
Review packets
Generate review packets for the selected anchors before promoting or changing readiness claims:
make review-packet PACK=examples/evidence_packs/dicom_series_preflight_trusted_pass
make review-packet PACK=examples/evidence_packs/dicom_series_to_volume_trusted_pass
make review-packet PACK=examples/evidence_packs/nv_segment_ct_trusted_pass
The default output path is runs/review_packets/<pack-name>.md. Override it
when a release run needs a named bundle:
make review-packet \
PACK=examples/evidence_packs/nv_segment_ct_trusted_pass \
REVIEW_PACKET_OUT=runs/release_readiness/nv_segment_ct_trusted_pass.md
Review packets are generated views over evidence packs, not sources of truth.
Keep them under runs/ unless there is an explicit reason to curate one as an
example.
Blocker triage
If a future snapshot is not all published, inspect the first blockers with:
make audit-skill SKILL=<skill-or-verifier-dir-name>
python tools/render_contract_summary.py skills/<name>
For verifier targets, pass the verifier path to render_contract_summary.py.
Then render a packet for the best existing pack or trusted run:
make review-packet PACK=<pack-or-trusted-run-dir>
Classify each blocker as one of:
- trusted-run evidence gap
- verifier evidence gap
- documentation or eval artifact gap
- implementation or manifest gap
- accepted release exception
Do not manually store lifecycle status in manifests. It is derived by
skill_completeness_v1.
With-vs-without record
Backend comparisons stay tied to capability contracts and reviewable evidence, not leaderboard framing. Every backend-run record should preserve:
- backend and model identity
- prompt or context actually given
- generated command or tool call
- correction attempts and reason for stopping
- execution result
- evidence pack path or failure reason
- review-packet summary when evidence exists
- token, cost, and runtime fields when available
Use the existing no-network study gates:
make verify-with-vs-without
make audit-with-vs-without
make approval-packet-with-vs-without
make approved-rerun-plan-with-vs-without
If external reruns are needed, use the approval packet and reviewed rerun plan. Do not make ad hoc LLM calls from this release loop.
Definition of done
The release-readiness loop is working when a reviewer can run one status command, open this readiness note, inspect one review packet per candidate, and understand:
- what is ready to publish
- what is blocked
- what evidence supports the claim
- what verifier coverage is missing
- what should not be claimed