# Oss Ready

> Transform a project into a professional open-source repository by adding LICENSE, README, CONTRIBUTING, CODE_OF_CONDUCT, SECURITY, and GitHub issue/PR templates. Don't use for documentation overhauls, landing-page generation, or registry publishing.

- Skill: `luongnv89/oss-ready` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add luongnv89/oss-ready`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/luongnv89/oss-ready/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- License: MIT
- Author: luongnv89 (https://skillmd.com/u/luongnv89)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/luongnv89/oss-ready

---


# OSS Ready

Transform a project into a professional open-source repository with standard community files and GitHub templates.

## Repo Sync Before Edits (mandatory)
Before creating/updating/deleting files in an existing repository, sync the current branch with remote:

```bash
branch="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"
git fetch origin
git pull --rebase origin "$branch"
```

If the working tree is not clean, stash first, sync, then restore:

```bash
git stash push -u -m "pre-sync"
branch="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"
git fetch origin && git pull --rebase origin "$branch"
git stash pop
```

If `origin` is missing, pull is unavailable, or rebase/stash conflicts occur, stop and ask the user before continuing.

## Workflow

> Before proceeding, check **Edge Cases** below for a non-MIT LICENSE, a monorepo, no detectable language, a private/internal repo, or a dirty/detached HEAD — handle the matching case first if it applies.

### 0. Create Feature Branch

Before making any changes:
1. Check the current branch - if already on a feature branch for this task, skip
2. Check the repo for branch naming conventions (e.g., `feat/`, `feature/`, etc.)
3. Create and switch to a new branch following the repo's convention, or fallback to: `feat/oss-ready`

### 1. Analyze Project

Identify:
- Primary language(s) and tech stack
- Project purpose and functionality
- Existing documentation to preserve
- Package manager (npm, pip, cargo, etc.)

### 2. Create/Update Core Files

**README.md** - Enhance with:
- Project overview and motivation
- Key features list
- Quick start (< 5 min setup)
- Prerequisites and installation
- Usage examples with code
- Project structure
- Technology stack
- Contributing link
- License badge

**CONTRIBUTING.md** - Include:
- How to contribute overview
- Development setup
- Branching strategy (feature branches from main)
- Commit conventions (Conventional Commits)
- PR process and review expectations
- Coding standards
- Testing requirements

**LICENSE** - Default to MIT unless specified. Copy from `assets/LICENSE-MIT`.

**CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md** - Use Contributor Covenant. Copy from `assets/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`.

**SECURITY.md** - Vulnerability reporting process. Copy from `assets/SECURITY.md`.

### 3. Create GitHub Templates

Copy from `assets/.github/`:
- `ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md`
- `ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md`
- `PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`

### 4. Create Documentation Structure

```
docs/
├── ARCHITECTURE.md    # System design, components
├── DEVELOPMENT.md     # Dev setup, debugging
├── DEPLOYMENT.md      # Production deployment
└── CHANGELOG.md       # Version history
```

### 5. Update Project Metadata

Update package file based on tech stack:
- **Node.js**: `package.json` - name, description, keywords, repository, license
- **Python**: `pyproject.toml` or `setup.py`
- **Rust**: `Cargo.toml`
- **Go**: `go.mod` + README badges

### 6. Ensure .gitignore

Verify comprehensive patterns for the tech stack.

### 7. Present Checklist

After completion, show:
- [x] Files created/updated
- [ ] Items needing manual review
- Recommendations for next steps

## Step Completion Reports

After completing each major step, output a status report in this format:

```
◆ [Step Name] ([step N of M] — [context])
··································································
  [Check 1]:          √ pass
  [Check 2]:          √ pass (note if relevant)
  [Check 3]:          × fail — [reason]
  [Check 4]:          √ pass
  [Criteria]:         √ N/M met
  ____________________________
  Result:             PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL
```

Adapt the check names to match what the step actually validates. Use `√` for pass, `×` for fail, and `—` to add brief context. The "Criteria" line summarizes how many acceptance criteria were met. The "Result" line gives the overall verdict.

### Analysis (step 1 of 7)

```
◆ Analysis (step 1 of 7 — project profiling)
··································································
  Language detected:       √ pass — TypeScript (primary)
  Project type identified: √ pass — CLI tool
  Existing docs found:     √ pass — README.md (partial), no LICENSE
  [Criteria]:              √ 3/3 met
  ____________________________
  Result:                  PASS
```

Repeat this format for each subsequent step — Core Files, GitHub Templates, Documentation, Project Metadata, .gitignore, Checklist — adapting the check names to what that step actually validates. Steps 5 and 6 carry acceptance criteria of their own, so a run that reports complete without them has skipped verifiable work. Step 0 sets up the branch and gets no report.

## Guidelines

- Adapt to project's actual tech stack
- Include working examples from the actual codebase

## Acceptance Criteria

The skill is complete when every item below can be verified with `test -f`, `grep`, or a quick visual check. Treat this as a checklist the agent must assert before reporting success.

- [ ] `LICENSE` exists at repo root and contains a valid SPDX identifier (e.g., `MIT`, `Apache-2.0`). Verify: `grep -E "MIT License|Apache License" LICENSE`.
- [ ] `README.md` exists, is at least 40 lines, and includes sections for Installation, Usage, and License. Verify: `grep -iE "^#+ (install|usage|license)" README.md | wc -l` returns >= 3.
- [ ] `CONTRIBUTING.md` exists and references the issue tracker plus a branching/PR workflow. Verify: `grep -iE "issue|pull request|branch" CONTRIBUTING.md`.
- [ ] `CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` exists and mentions the Contributor Covenant. Verify: `grep -i "contributor covenant" CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`.
- [ ] `SECURITY.md` exists and lists at least one vulnerability-reporting contact (email or form URL). Verify: `grep -E "@|https?://" SECURITY.md`.
- [ ] `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md` and `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md` both exist with YAML frontmatter (`name:`, `about:`).
- [ ] `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` exists and contains a checklist (`- [ ]`).
- [ ] `.gitignore` exists and excludes the language-appropriate build/temp artefacts (e.g., `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `__pycache__/`, `target/`).
- [ ] Project metadata file (`package.json`, `pyproject.toml`, `Cargo.toml`, or `go.mod`) declares `license`, `description`, and `repository` fields where the format supports them.
- [ ] No previously committed files were deleted; only additions and non-destructive enhancements were made.

## Expected Output

After a successful run on a TypeScript CLI project that started with only a partial `README.md`, the agent emits a final report shaped like this:

```
◆ OSS Ready summary (7 of 7 steps complete)
··································································
  Files created:
    √ LICENSE                                  (MIT)
    √ CONTRIBUTING.md                          (33 lines)
    √ CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md                       (Contributor Covenant 2.1)
    √ SECURITY.md                              (reporting via security@example.com)
    √ .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md
    √ .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md
    √ .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
    √ docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, DEVELOPMENT.md, DEPLOYMENT.md, CHANGELOG.md
  Files updated:
    √ README.md                                (+ Quick Start, Usage, License badge)
    √ package.json                             (license, repository, keywords)
    √ .gitignore                               (added dist/, .env)
  Acceptance criteria:    √ 10/10 met
  Manual review needed:
    - Confirm SECURITY.md contact email is monitored
    - Add real maintainer names to CODE_OF_CONDUCT enforcement section
  ____________________________
  Result:                 PASS
```

The agent must list the manual-review items explicitly so the user can finish what cannot be automated. Assert that the file tree printed by the agent matches what is actually on disk before declaring PASS.

## Edge Cases

The skill should detect and handle these inputs explicitly rather than fail silently:

- **Existing LICENSE with a non-MIT identifier** — never overwrite. Read it, log the detected license, and skip the LICENSE step.
- **Monorepo with multiple `package.json` files** — update only the root metadata file unless the user names a sub-package.
- **Repo with no detectable language** (empty repo or only docs) — pause and ask the user which template stack to assume.
- **Existing `CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` or `SECURITY.md`** — diff against the template; only append a missing section, never replace user content.
- **Private/internal projects** — confirm with the user before adding public-facing files like SECURITY.md or community templates.
- **Pre-existing `.github/` workflows or templates** — preserve them; merge only the missing files.
- **Non-English README** — keep the existing language; do not translate, only add structurally missing sections in the same language.
- **Detached HEAD or dirty working tree** — abort with the sync warning above; never force changes onto an unstable branch.

## Assets

Templates in `assets/`:
- `LICENSE-MIT` - MIT license template
- `CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` - Contributor Covenant
- `SECURITY.md` - Security policy template
- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md`
- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md`
- `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`