finalize
The finalize skill orchestrates a complete post-implementation quality assurance workflow by sequentially running code polishing, documentation simplification, changelog updates, and self-improvement routines, then analyzing staged changes to determine whether they form a single reviewable unit or multiple independent units before shipping via commit and push. Use it when the user requests finalization of implementation, completion of changes, or readiness to commit.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo /tmp/finalize && cp -r /tmp/finalize/claude/skills/finalize ~/.claude/skills/finalizeSKILL.md
# Finalize Implementation Post-implementation QA workflow: tests, code polishing, commit, and self-improvement. ## Task Tracking At the start, use `TaskCreate` to create a task for each phase: 1. Run `/polish-code` skill 2. Run `/simplify-docs` skill 3. Run `/update-changelog` skill 4. Run `/self-improve` skill 5. Ship It ## Phase 1: Run `/polish-code` Skill Run the `/polish-code` skill for the current changes. ## Phase 2: Run `/simplify-docs` Skill Run the `/simplify-docs` skill on the staged changes (`git diff --cached`). Stage any edits it makes before continuing. ## Phase 3: Run `/update-changelog` Skill Run the `/update-changelog` skill. ## Phase 4: Run `/self-improve` Skill Run the `/self-improve` skill for the current session. Always run this phase even if the session seemed routine. ## Phase 5: Ship It ### Step 1: Analyze Split Examine the staged changes and evaluate whether they form a single reviewable unit or several independently reviewable units. This step decides only whether to split; the chosen ship skill owns all repository-state detection and the commit, push, branch, and PR intent. Run `git diff --cached --stat` and `git diff --cached` to understand the scope. Categorize changes along three dimensions: - **Concern type**: refactoring, bug fix, new feature, cleanup, dependency update - **Layer/domain**: backend, frontend, database migrations, i18n, tests, configuration - **Logical unit**: files that form a coherent, independently reviewable change A split is warranted when the staged changes contain multiple reviewable units. Each unit should be independently understandable, testable, and revertable. When deciding group boundaries, consider whether a reviewer could evaluate each group without needing context from the others. ### Step 2: Present Analysis and Choose Path Output the split analysis as text. If changes form a single cohesive unit, note this and run the `/ship` skill. If changes span multiple reviewable units, propose an ordered list of groups. For each group, specify: - Name and one-line description - File list (flag files with mixed-concern hunks) - Branch topology: stacked on the previous group (when this group depends on it) or independent (when it can stand alone) Use `AskUserQuestion` to let the user choose whether to keep the changes together or split them. - **Ship together** — run the `/ship` skill - **Split** — run the `/split-and-ship` skill Then use the TaskList tool and proceed to any remaining task. ## Rules - Diff size, number of files changed, passing tests, perceived user urgency, or context window concerns are not reasons to skip a phase. Each phase does work beyond what those signals cover. "The session was long" or "a prior phase was thorough" are never valid reasons to skip a later phase. - Never stage or commit files containing secrets (`.env`, credentials, API keys). Warn if detected. - Do not present diffs to the user — the user reviews diffs in an external git client. Use `git diff` internally as needed. - If a non-test step fails (polish, review), stop and report the failure. Do not skip ahead.
For each reviewer question on a PR, recall implementation reasoning and compose a raw answer. Use when the user asks to \"answer reviewer questions\", \"draft answers to PR questions\", or \"explain reviewer questions\".
Apply findings by making the suggested code changes. Applies accepted verdicts, escalates ambiguous findings to the user, and offers to note genuine improvements for later. Use when the user asks to \"apply findings\", \"apply fixes\", \"apply suggestions\", \"apply accepted findings\", \"fix the findings\", or \"apply the review results\".
Project-wide health audit pipeline that fans out to all analysis skills in parallel, evaluates findings, and produces a unified report at .turbo/audit.md. Use when the user asks to \"audit the project\", \"run a full audit\", \"project health check\", \"audit my code\", \"codebase audit\", or \"comprehensive review\".
Shared changelog conventions and formatting rules referenced by $create-changelog and $update-changelog. Not typically invoked directly.
Enforce mirror, reuse, and symmetry principles to keep new code consistent with surrounding code. Use when writing new code in an existing codebase, adding new features, refactoring, or making any code changes.
Run autonomous task execution using the codex CLI. Use when the user asks to \"codex exec\", \"run codex exec\", \"execute a task with codex\", or \"delegate to codex\".
Run AI-powered code review using the codex CLI. Use when the user asks to \"codex review\", \"run codex review\", or \"review a commit with codex\".
Shared commit message rules and technical constraints referenced by $stage-commit and $commit-staged. Not typically invoked directly.