One reason I use tools like OpenCode is that I don't want my workflow tied to one model.
But I realized my actual development process still was.
I'd switch models and then rebuild some variation of:
Different model = wildly different interpretation of “production ready.”
So I built Launchify.
It's one canonical production-readiness spec with adapters for OpenCode, Claude Code, and Codex.
The model is interchangeable.
The checklist stays the same.
And now it can be installed globally in ~/.launchify/, so the same workflow can follow you across projects too.
The all-in command is:
/launchify-landify
which runs:
security
→ dead code / duplicate / AI debris cleanup
→ feature completeness
→ compliance
→ build/lint/typecheck/tests
→ production grading
Security has 24 categories, from the normal auth/API/database stuff all the way through cloud, supply chain, CI/CD, payments, privacy, RAG and AI-agent security.
I recently ran a gap analysis against OWASP/API/LLM/NIST material and added 238 checks, including:
- AI tool SSRF
- agent excessive agency
- SLSA/Sigstore/SBOM verification
- package install-script attacks
- Kubernetes hardening
- webhook signature/replay handling
- distributed locking / TOCTOU
- RTO/RPO and immutable backups
- SIEM / IoC monitoring
- encryption key lifecycle
I also added something I hadn't seen bundled into these workflows much:
/launchify-compliance
It checks whether the PRODUCT around the code is actually launchable:
privacy policy, ToS, cookies, DPA, DMCA, accessibility, AI disclosures, SLA, refund policy, relevant privacy/regulatory requirements, etc.
There are audit-only versions of the workflows if you just want findings.
Total now is 60 commands / 25 categories.
README has more information of what Launchify actually provides for you.
MIT / OSS:
https://github.com/jacobpowaza/launchify-skills
I'm especially curious what OpenCode users think about the canonical-spec approach.
What workflow do you wish behaved identically regardless of which model/provider you switched to?