Verify and Ship

After implementing your changes, follow these steps to verify quality and ship the work.

1. Acceptance Criteria Validation (CRITICAL)

Use the issue tracker get_issue tool to fetch the current issue details. Extract ALL acceptance criteria from the issue description and verify each one is satisfied by the implementation. If no explicit criteria exist, validate against the implied requirements from the issue title and description.

2. Quality Checks

Choose validation by changed behavior, risk, and existing coverage. Verification is required; new automated tests and a full-suite run are not required for every change. Follow repository-specific checks and CI gates where applicable.

Direct verification — For routine release scripts, packaging/build metadata, CI, documentation, and instruction edits, prefer syntax checks, a safe dry run, artifact inspection, an isolated install smoke check, or a consistency review when those are sufficient. Record the command/result or review performed in the PR; no new test file or validation report is needed merely to show work.
Automated tests — Run relevant existing tests. Add or retain a regression test only when it catches a concrete consequential failure and its protection justifies its maintenance. Examples include publishing the wrong artifact, unintentionally moving stable tags, or accepting invalid release evidence. Explain the failure each new test catches. Do not add brittle assertions on documentation wording or source text, tests that mirror implementation, or elaborate scaffolding for low-risk edits. A script filename alone neither requires tests nor exempts consequential behavior from protection.
Scope — Broaden testing when shared behavior, failures, or unresolved risk warrants it; do not automatically run the full suite or generate coverage reports. Once sufficient checks pass, stop repeating them unless changes or new evidence justify another run. Investigate relevant failures rather than retrying unchanged commands. Report any unresolved failures honestly.
Lint, types, build — Run checks relevant to the changed files and required repository gates. Fix introduced failures.
Review — Check correctness, scope, and maintainability, including whether proposed tests provide useful protection.

Where the repository uses F1, apply its canonical skills/f1-test-drive/SKILL.md applicability policy before invoking a drive or requesting evidence. Nonapplicable changes need proportionate checks and a brief PR note, without an F1 run or report. Do not infer an F1 requirement from this skill. Preserve existing safeguards for consequential failures.

3. Changelog Update

Check if the project has changelog files:

ls -la CHANGELOG.md CHANGELOG.internal.md 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_CHANGELOG"

If changelog files exist, diff against the base branch to detect entries already added by this branch:

# See what changelog lines this branch has added compared to the base branch
# Replace <base_branch> with the actual base branch from the issue context
git diff <base_branch> -- CHANGELOG.md CHANGELOG.internal.md 2>/dev/null

Handling existing entries:

If the diff shows this branch already added a changelog entry for the current issue (matching the issue identifier), update that entry in-place (e.g., to add the PR/MR link or refine the description). Do NOT add a duplicate entry.
If the diff shows this branch added changelog entries for a different issue or no entries at all, add a new entry.

Adding or updating entries:

Place entries under ## [Unreleased] in the appropriate subsection (### Added, ### Changed, ### Fixed, ### Removed)
Focus on end-user impact — be concise but descriptive
Include the Linear issue identifier and PR/MR link (format: ([ISSUE-ID](linear_url), [#NUMBER](PR_OR_MR_URL)))
Follow Keep a Changelog format

4. Commit and Push

Stage all relevant changes (including changelog updates)
Commit with clear, descriptive messages following the project's commit conventions
Push to the remote repository

5. Create or Update PR/MR

Determine the platform from the repository context (<github_url> or <gitlab_url> in the issue context). Use the appropriate tool for the platform.

GitHub (when `<github_url>` is present)

git push -u origin HEAD
gh pr view --json url,number 2>/dev/null || gh pr create --draft --base [base_branch from context] --title "[descriptive title]" --body "Work in progress"

GitLab (when `<gitlab_url>` is present)

git push -u origin HEAD
glab mr view 2>/dev/null || glab mr create --draft --target-branch [base_branch from context] --title "[descriptive title]" --description "Work in progress"

PR/MR Description

Update the PR/MR with a comprehensive description:

Assignee attribution: If <github_username> is available in the assignee context, add Assignee: @username ([Display Name](linear_profile_url)) at the top of the body. If only a linear profile URL is available, use Assignee: [Display Name](linear_profile_url).
Summary of changes, implementation approach, and testing performed
Link to the Linear issue
Cyrus marker: Include  as a hidden HTML comment at the end of the body
Interaction tip: Add this at the end (before the marker), using the bot username from <github_bot_username> or <gitlab_bot_username> in the <agent_context> block of the system prompt. If <agent_context> is not present, default to cyrusagent:
```
---
> **Tip:** I will respond to comments that @ mention @<bot_username> on this PR/MR. You can also submit a review with all your feedback at once, and I will automatically wake up to address each comment.
```

Remove any "WIP:" or "Draft:" prefix from the title. Check <agent_guidance> — only mark the PR/MR as ready if guidance does NOT specify keeping them as drafts.

Verify the PR/MR targets the correct base branch from <base_branch> in the issue context.

verify-and-ship