---

name: handoff-summary description: Emit the Build Handoff Summary artifact in its fixed format. Use at the end of a build, immediately after /3p-review passes — invoked by the build-model workflow (dedicated build model) or by the main model after all build phases. Produces the fixed handoff template the reviewing model consumes. argument-hint: "[plan-file-path]" allowed-tools: Read, Glob

Handoff Summary

You are emitting the Build Handoff Summary — the single artifact that carries a completed, reviewed build to the next reader.

Output style: Check memory for workflow-config:caveman-level. If set, adapt your output brevity to that level while preserving technical accuracy.

When this runs

This skill is invoked after the build is complete and after /3p-review has passed. It does not build, test, or review — it only produces the handoff record. If /3p-review has not run yet, stop and run it first. /3p-review is its own artifact — the handoff summary does not restate or reference its findings.

Your only job

Follow the template below: same headings, same order, same casing. Fill each section from the build record. Do not rename sections, add sections, drop sections, or replace the template with your own prose. This is a fixed artifact format so the consuming model can parse it reliably. A section with nothing in it is filled with "None.", never removed.

## Build Handoff Summary

**Plan:** [plan file path]
**Plan revision built against:** [amendment IDs applied during this build, e.g. "A1, A2", or "as approved"]

### Halts
- **Phase N** — [what was halted on, one line] → [resolved by amendment A1 / overruled by the user / withdrawn after investigation]
- (Every halt raised during this build. If none, write "None.")

### Deviations
- **Phase N: [Name]** — [what changed and why, one line] — [amendment ID if a plan amendment covers it, or "no amendment"]
- (Only list phases that deviated from the plan. If nothing deviated, write "None.")

### Verification Runs
- **[plan criterion, or a plain name for the run]** (rung [T1/T2/T3/T4]) → exit [code] — [N passed, M failed, K skipped]
- **Mutation checks** → [N of M witnessed]; each one not witnessed is listed under Unproven Criteria. Omit this line when the plan names no mutation checks
- (Name the run; do not write out the shell line. Every run carries its rung. The T4 full-suite run from Phase Completion is mandatory here. Report the counts the terminal printed, not what you expected.)

### Unproven Criteria
- **[plan criterion]** — [manual / skipped / deferred / verified by inspection] — [why]
- (Every test criterion in the plan that did NOT end in a green automated run. If all criteria ran green, write "None.")

### Concerns
- [Anything the next reviewer should specifically investigate or validate]
- (If none, write "None.")

Rules

• Be honest and specific. Deviations and concerns are the whole point — an empty summary that hides real drift defeats the purpose. If a phase departed from the plan, say so and why.
• Keep it to the five sections. This is not a feature description or a changelog. Do not restate what the plan already says.
• Halts and the plan revision are how the next model reads everything else. A reviewer comparing the code against a plan that was amended twice mid-build will read the amendments as unexplained divergence unless this summary says which revision the build was made against. A deviation with no amendment behind it is a different and more serious fact than one with an amendment, and only you can tell them apart.
• Name each run; never write out its command line. Identify a run by the plan criterion it satisfies, or by a plain description ("full suite, project runner"). The command text lives in the plan — this artifact carries only which run happened and what it reported. Environment values, arguments and headers have no business in a document that is committed and passed between models.
• Report counts, never output. Exit codes and pass/fail/skip numbers are what the reviewer needs; "all tests pass" is not a report, and the reviewer re-runs from the plan and compares. Copied terminal text carries values you did not intend to publish, and wording the next model may read as instruction.
• A judgement the plan or the brief explicitly left to you belongs in Concerns, with which way you went and what you checked. It is the one kind of decision that is neither a deviation nor a halt, because the contract told you to decide, and the reviewing model is required to re-trace it. It can only do that against a choice you named, so an unreported one reads as no decision having been made.
• Unproven Criteria is the section you will be tempted to leave empty. Anything you checked by reading rather than running, skipped as "obviously fine", or intended to come back to, goes here. A criterion omitted here reads as green to the next model, and that is how an unbuilt path ships.
• A rung is not decoration, and never round it up. The reviewer re-runs from the plan and compares rung against rung; a T2 run reported as the full suite is a false claim that every later gate inherits. If a criterion was only ever proven at a scoped rung, say so, and if the distinction is genuinely unclear to you, report the narrower one.
• Do not mention /3p-review. Review is its own artifact with its own outcome; the handoff summary is not the place to report it. Any residual concern worth carrying forward belongs under Concerns, in your own words, not attributed back to the review.

What happens next

The summary is said, not saved (AW-29): it is emitted into the conversation, for the human or the next model. It is this skill's one report, emitted in full because the next reader must rule on it; nothing around it is narrated (AW-28). It is not a file, and inventing a path for it is how a handoff ends up somewhere the reviewing model never looks.

• Dedicated build model (launched via /build-model): present the summary, then STOP. The user carries it to the main model.
• Main model: present the summary as the build record, then continue the workflow → /verify-completion → archive the plan.