task-summary
Focused post-task summary covering architectural decisions, decision forks, pitfalls, and plan deviations. Use at `document → review`, before handing the card to the reviewer, on a task that failed, or when the supervisor asks what happened with a task.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 所属仓库
- muratovv/ai-hats
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-05
- Stars
- ★ 3
- Forks
- 1
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- task-summary
- ai_hats
- { "type": "skill", "schema_version": 1 }
- license
- MIT
- description
- Focused post-task summary covering architectural decisions, decision forks, pitfalls, and plan deviations. Use at `document → review`, before handing the card to the reviewer, on a task that failed, or when the supervisor asks what happened with a task.
03 SKILL.md 正文
Task Summary
Produce a focused summary of a completed task, capturing only decision-critical knowledge.
When to Use
The backward-looking factual record of a finished task — what was decided and
why. It is due at document → review: summary.md is what the reviewer opens,
so it is attached before the card enters review, not after it leaves (see
hatrack's per-edge table). Two siblings to keep distinct:
- self-retrospective is the improvement analysis (5-whys, systemic fixes) of how the work went — run that when there were failures or backtracks; this skill just records the outcome.
- context-handoff is the forward brief for whoever continues the work — task-summary looks back, handoff looks ahead.
Procedure
-
Identify the task: Locate the task card in
<ai_hats_dir>/tracker/backlog/tasks/<ID>/. -
Extract decision-critical information:
- Architectural decisions — what structural choices were made and WHY
- Decision forks — where were there multiple viable options? Document: what options existed, which was chosen, and the key reason
- Pitfalls discovered — non-obvious traps that cost time or could bite again
- Deviations from plan — where did execution diverge from the original plan and why
-
Draft the summary at a scratch path outside the backlog — e.g.
/tmp/<ID>-summary.md. Do not write it undertasks/<ID>/yourself; step 4 puts it there:
# Summary: <task title>
Completed: YYYY-MM-DD
Result: <done | failed>
## What Was Done
<2-5 sentences. Outcome, not play-by-play.>
## Key Decisions
| Decision | Why This Way | Alternative Rejected |
| -------- | ------------ | -------------------- |
| ... | ... | ... |
## Pitfalls
- <Non-obvious trap> — <impact or how to avoid>
## Deviations from Plan
- <What changed> — <why>
-
Attach it to the card:
rack transition <ID> --attach /tmp/<ID>-summary.md:summary.mdThe file is copied to
tasks/<ID>/summary.md— a document, discovered live byrack context(name + digest computed on the fly, fs-as-truth).--attachis the sanctioned way in: the backlog gate refuses a hand edit undertasks/<ID>/**, carving outplan.mdalone. Re-attaching the same name overwrites (the op notes it);--freeze summary.mdpins its digest.
What NOT to Include
- Step-by-step log of actions (that's
work_login the task card) - Routine operations (git commits, file reads, linting)
- Information already in the code or commit messages
- Full error traces (reference file paths instead)
Completion
- Summary drafted outside the backlog tree, then attached via
rack transition --attach - Contains at least: What Was Done, Key Decisions
rack context <ID>listssummary.mdunder its documents
Anti-Patterns
- Summarizing everything — the point is filtering, not transcription
- Missing the WHY — a list of facts without reasoning helps nobody
- Writing the summary without reading the task's work_log first — you'll miss context
- Writing the summary under
tasks/<ID>/by hand —summary.mdthere, or asummary_file:key in task.yaml. Both break the backlog gate, and no CLI writes either.rack transition <ID> --attachis the door
04 同仓库更多 Skills
tool-evaluation-protocol
Time-bounded protocol for evaluating new tools, libraries, or methodologies before adoption. Use when evaluating a candidate dependency for the project, researching a methodology (e.g. ML/LLM frameworks, testing approaches), or following up on a hype-driven recommendation.
systematic-debugging
4-phase bug-fix protocol (evidence, pattern, hypothesis, verify). Use when investigating any error, failure, or unexpected behavior, handling bug reports from users or monitoring, or diagnosing test failures with non-obvious causes.
skill-template
Canonical template and validation guide for ai-hats skills. Use when creating a new skill, reviewing an existing one for structural compliance, or deciding which pattern fits a new behavior.
skill-optimization
Audit and refactor library components to eliminate redundancy and staleness. Use during periodic library maintenance, after adding multiple new skills or rules, when a role's token budget is too high, or after retrospectives identify component issues.
silent-fallback-gate
PreToolUse hook — refuses an Edit or Write that adds an inert broad except. Use when a Python edit was blocked for a silent fallback.
retro-to-framework
Convert an observation about agent behavior — from a retrospective or from a single incident — into a framework-level change (hook, rule, skill, skill update). Use after a retrospective identifies problems that are not project-specific, after an incident where an agent misapplied a component it had read, when CLAUDE.md band-aids accumulate (more than 3 per-project rules that could be generic), or when the same problem recurs across multiple projects.