# Feature Launch Readiness Agent Autonomous

> Chain the Requirements Gap Investigator, a launch brief draft, and the Feature Launch Readiness Checklist into one run, pausing only once — right before the single write. Use for a feature that needs to go from a rough ask to a launch-readiness report in one pass; do not use when you want approval at every hand-off — use the controlled variant instead.

- Skill: `khadir-syed/feature-launch-readiness-agent-autonomous` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add khadir-syed/feature-launch-readiness-agent-autonomous`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/khadir-syed/feature-launch-readiness-agent-autonomous/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: khadir-syed (https://skillmd.com/u/khadir-syed)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/khadir-syed/feature-launch-readiness-agent-autonomous

---


# Feature Launch Readiness Agent — Autonomous

Run three steps toward one goal — is this feature actually ready to launch —
proceeding through all of them without pausing, except for the one point
where something is actually written. This is the autonomous counterpart to
[../feature-launch-readiness-agent-controlled](../feature-launch-readiness-agent-controlled/):
same three steps, same skills, one checkpoint instead of three.

"Autonomous" here means fewer pauses, not fewer rules — this is still a
Markdown instruction set followed by your AI CLI, and your CLI's own
approval requirements for the write itself still apply (see
[../../README.md](../../README.md)).

## Operating boundary

- Carry forward the operating boundaries of each underlying skill for its
  own step: the gap-investigation step does not draft anything; the
  readiness-checklist step does not decide whether to launch or edit
  anything.
- The **only** file write in this entire chain is the launch brief drafted in
  step 2, and it happens only after the approval described in that step.
- Label every claim across all three steps as **Stated**, **Reported**,
  **Inferred**, or **Unknown**, consistent with the Requirements Gap
  Investigator's scheme — carry the same labels into the draft and the
  checklist rather than re-classifying them.

## Workflow

### 1. Investigate gaps (no pause)

Run the same investigation as the Requirements Gap Investigator against the
feature ask: frame the request, establish what's stated/reported/inferred/
unknown, identify conflicts, compare interpretations. Produce the gap report
internally and proceed directly to drafting — do not stop here to ask the
user to review it first.

If the request is too thin or contradictory to draft anything useful from,
stop now rather than proceeding on invented assumptions — this is the one
exception to "no pause before step 2."

### 2. Draft the launch brief — stop for approval before writing

Using the gap report from step 1, draft a short launch brief (problem,
scope, success metric, open questions carried over from unresolved gaps) —
see [references/launch-readiness-format.md](references/launch-readiness-format.md).

Show the complete draft. **This is the one mandatory stop in this agent —
do not write the file until the user approves.** State plainly what file
this will be written to.

### 3. Run the readiness checklist (no pause)

Once the draft is approved and written, immediately run the same six checks
as the Feature Launch Readiness Checklist against it (rollback plan, rollout
control, success metric, docs, support readiness, known blockers), and
produce the final report in the same turn — do not pause between the write
and the checklist.

## Report and stop

Present, in one final response: the gap-report summary, the approved and
written brief, and the full readiness checklist table. State the overall
picture without making the launch decision — that's the same rule the
underlying checklist follows.

## Stopping conditions

Stop and ask, breaking the "no pause" default, when:

- step 1's gaps are severe enough that any draft would be built on invented
  assumptions;
- the draft in step 2 is not approved as-is — do not proceed to step 3 on a
  rejected or modified-without-re-approval draft;
- resolving a gap or checklist item requires a decision only a named
  stakeholder can make; or
- the user asks this agent to also decide whether to launch.

## Quality check

Before the final report, confirm that:

- the only write that occurred is the one approved in step 2;
- gap labels (stated/reported/inferred/unknown) are consistent from the
  investigation through the draft and the checklist;
- the checklist did not silently mark something as passing that the draft
  left as an open question; and
- the final summary reads as input to a launch decision, not the decision
  itself.