delivery-orchestrator
Decompose an epic into atomic parallelizable tasks, route each to the right skill, and keep the four delivery records straight — issues, STATUS, ROADMAP, CHANGELOG. Use as a meta-router when several s
SKILL.mdskills/delivery-orchestrator/SKILL.md
GitHubDelivery Orchestrator
A skill for choosing skills. Once your harness grows past a handful of skills, the agent needs a way to select the right one. This is that skill.
The orchestrator has three jobs: decompose work into the smallest independently executable units, route each unit to the skill that owns it, and keep the delivery records honest — because a plan nobody can trust is worse than no plan, and it takes longer to discover.
When to use
- Starting a new epic or multi-track piece of work
- When an agent is about to attempt everything in one context window
- When parallel execution across multiple agents is needed
- When you need to decide which skill applies to an incoming task
- When the records have drifted — a status file that stops before today's work, a roadmap
asking for a decision already made, a tracker claiming
gatedwith nothing that walks it
The delivery records — the baseline
One fact, one owner. Four artefacts carry delivery state, and each answers exactly one
question. Full doctrine, including the issue template and the audit: docs/DELIVERY-RECORDS.md.
| Record | The one question it answers | Written when |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub issues | What exactly is this work, and how will we know it is done? | Before the first line of code |
STATUS.md |
What is happening now, and what waits on whom? | One entry per working session |
ROADMAP.md |
What are we building toward, in what order? | When a milestone or the plan changes |
CHANGELOG.md |
What merged or released, with checks and version links? | When user-visible work merges |
The four rules that keep them from drifting:
ROADMAPowns build order. Where another document disagrees about what is next, the roadmap wins.CHANGELOGrecords the proven, not the intended. A changelog of intentions reads as evidence, which makes it worse than none.- An issue not filed is not started. The tracker is current before the code, because the failure this prevents is work that accretes from a small fix and is reconciled afterwards, if at all.
gatedmeans a test proves a user can reach it;shippedmeans a person used it. These two are the ones routinely overclaimed. Code existing isbuilt, and deployment is not shipping.
Golden-thread ownership
For intake, dispatch, scope changes and completion, follow the golden-thread section
of the adopting project's DELIVERY-WORKFLOW.md, located by its profile. Without an
adopted workflow, start with operating-model-bootstrap in the consumer project.
Use the workflow template
as a checklist while mapping existing records; unresolved placeholders are project
questions, not executable paths or permission to invent defaults.
Product Owner maintains accepted intent and priorities; CXO provides material oversight;
test strategy corroborates coverage. The orchestrator actions and reconciles the tickets,
dependencies, status and delivery links. Check in-flight owners before selecting roadmap work.
Procedure
Part 1 — Decomposition
- Read the spec or brief — confirm a feature spec or HLD exists. If not, invoke
spec-first-deliveryfirst. - Identify tracks — group work into independent tracks (e.g. backend API, frontend, infrastructure, testing). Tracks can run in parallel. Dependencies between tracks must be explicit.
- Break each track into atomic tasks — an atomic task is one that:
- Can be assigned to a single agent
- Has a clear input and a clear output
- Does not require coordination with another concurrent task to complete
- Can be validated independently
- Sequence dependencies — where task B requires output from task A, mark the dependency. Everything else is parallel.
- Assign context boundaries — each agent gets only the context it needs. Avoid stuffing all specs into every agent's context.
Part 2 — Skill routing
- Map each task to a skill using the routing table below. If no skill matches exactly, use the closest and note the gap.
- Validate integration after parallel work — run the full regression suite (
make checkor the project's equivalent convergence command) after all parallel tracks complete. Parallel work that skips integration validation is not done.
Skill routing table
| Task type | Route to skill |
|---|---|
| New feature / epic planning | spec-first-delivery |
| Vision, requirements, user journeys and product acceptance | product-owner |
| Material strategic, cost/risk or operating ownership decision | cxo-oversight |
| Acceptance coverage and executable user-path checks | test-strategy |
| Architecture decision or trade-off | the-architect |
| High-stakes design review | adversarial-gate |
| Pre-deployment go/no-go | release-readiness |
| Release process governance, SemVer, ADR, changelog | release-manager |
| Enterprise policy, compliance, or governance alignment | governance-guardrail |
| GitHub repo operations: CI triggers, billing, issues, labels, branch protection | github-manager |
| Google ADK agent patterns | adk-expert |
| Cloud infrastructure guardrails (GCP, AWS, Azure, Alibaba Cloud) | cloud-expert |
| MCP server design or governance | mcp-server-scaffold |
| Agent output validation | domain-validator |
| PR or code review | pr-reviewer |
| LLM cost or model selection | cost-guardrail |
| Status or standup synthesis | sitrep |
| Plugin-directory, marketplace, or curated-list submission | plugin-submission |
| New repo or operating model install / repair | operating-model-bootstrap |
| Delivery controls: source of truth, issue/PR conventions, DoD, escalation | delivery-orchestrator (own it here) |
| An agreed goal to pursue autonomously to a merged outcome | get-it-done |
| Developer-machine contention, orphaned automation browsers, cloud-sync stalls | system-performance-guardrail |
Read-only SRE checkup of a GCP project: probes, status table, one OVERALL: line |
cloud-checkup |
| Frontend performance measurement: Core Web Vitals, traces, Lighthouse, heap growth | frontend-performance-audit |
| Routing this list | delivery-orchestrator (you are here) |
Adoption and review recovery
Use the adoption guide to reconcile conversational requirements, skill maintenance ownership, early operational dependencies and measured improvement. Preserve one integration owner and include review/integration in WIP.
Before consequential review declare the work-item attempt/time ceiling. On repeated findings or exhaustion, follow Council loop recovery; changing candidate or reviewer never erases unresolved findings or spent attempts.
Outputs
- Task breakdown: tracks, atomic tasks, dependencies
- Skill routing: task → skill mapping
- Parallel execution plan with integration validation step
- A brief orchestration summary for the human lead
Guardrails
- Atomic means independently validatable. If you cannot describe how to verify a task in isolation, it is not atomic — split it further or merge it with its dependency.
- Parallel agents must not share mutable state without a coordination strategy. If two tracks write to the same file or schema, they are not independent. Use worktrees or serialise them.
- Integration validation is not optional. Parallel work that skips the post-merge regression check is not complete.
- Keep agent context lean. Each agent gets its task spec and relevant ADRs, not the entire repo.
Model choice at the delegation boundary
Use the adopting project's model-routing policy before dispatch. Record requested model/effort, allowed paths, Definition of Done and independent checks. Prefer deterministic tools where sufficient; do not equate a smaller task with a qualified cheaper model. Track failed attempts, escalation and parent integration costs. Preserve existing risk floors and stop rules. The routing guide shows a reversible approach; it does not automatically enable routing in consumers.