Full-Output Enforcement

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/full-output-enforcement

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Full-Output Enforcement

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Limitations, Baseline, Banned Output Patterns, Handling Long Outputs, Quick Check.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Use when the user explicitly asks for full files, complete implementations, exhaustive lists, or unabridged deliverables.
• Use when placeholder code, skipped sections, TODO stubs, or descriptions in place of implementation would break the request.
• Use when a long answer may need clean continuation chunks without losing completeness or structural integrity.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: a task requires exhaustive unabridged output, complete files, or strict prevention of placeholders and skipped code.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Scope — Read the full request. Count how many distinct deliverables are expected (files, functions, sections, answers). Lock that number.
2. Build — Generate every deliverable completely. No partial drafts, no "you can extend this later."
3. Cross-check — Before output, re-read the original request. Compare your deliverable count against the scope count. If anything is missing, add it before responding.
4. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
5. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
6. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
7. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Execution Process

1. Scope — Read the full request. Count how many distinct deliverables are expected (files, functions, sections, answers). Lock that number.
2. Build — Generate every deliverable completely. No partial drafts, no "you can extend this later."
3. Cross-check — Before output, re-read the original request. Compare your deliverable count against the scope count. If anything is missing, add it before responding.

Imported: Limitations

• This skill enforces completeness, but it does not override token limits, safety constraints, missing source context, or user-provided scope boundaries.
• Split long outputs into clearly labeled continuation chunks when necessary, and verify that each chunk connects cleanly to the previous one.
• Do not invent unavailable code, credentials, private APIs, or project files to satisfy a request for complete output.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @full-output-enforcement to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @full-output-enforcement against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @full-output-enforcement for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @full-output-enforcement using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/full-output-enforcement

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @2d-games

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @3d-games

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @daily-gift

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @design-taste-frontend

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Baseline

Treat every task as production-critical. A partial output is a broken output. Do not optimize for brevity — optimize for completeness. If the user asks for a full file, deliver the full file. If the user asks for 5 components, deliver 5 components. No exceptions.

Imported: Banned Output Patterns

The following patterns are hard failures. Never produce them:

In code blocks:

// ...

// rest of code

// implement here

// TODO

/* ... */

// similar to above

// continue pattern

// add more as needed

...

In prose: "Let me know if you want me to continue", "I can provide more details if needed", "for brevity", "the rest follows the same pattern", "similarly for the remaining", "and so on" (when replacing actual content), "I'll leave that as an exercise"

Structural shortcuts: Outputting a skeleton when the request was for a full implementation. Showing the first and last section while skipping the middle. Replacing repeated logic with one example and a description. Describing what code should do instead of writing it.

Imported: Handling Long Outputs

When a response approaches the token limit:

• Do not compress remaining sections to squeeze them in.
• Do not skip ahead to a conclusion.
• Write at full quality up to a clean breakpoint (end of a function, end of a file, end of a section).
• End with:

[PAUSED — X of Y complete. Send "continue" to resume from: next section name]

On "continue", pick up exactly where you stopped. No recap, no repetition.

Imported: Quick Check

Before finalizing any response, verify:

• No banned patterns from the list above appear anywhere in the output
• Every item the user requested is present and finished
• Code blocks contain actual runnable code, not descriptions of what code would do
• Nothing was shortened to save space