game-debug
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Debug Godot projects with root cause analysis. Use with /game-debug.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ThiagoFdaSLopes/game-dev-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- mewzicians/Skills-Foldertheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- ThiagoFdaSLopes/game-dev-skills★ 2same name
- mewzicians/Skills-Folder★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- content-rewriteSkill
- content-writeSkill
- core-auditSkill
- core-bootstrapSkill
- core-commitSkill
- core-explainSkill
- core-finalizeSkill
- core-orchestrateSkill
- core-pullSkill
- core-setupSkill
- core-updateSkill
- design-convertSkill
- design-shipSkill
- design-tokensSkill
- dev-inspectSkill
- dev-learnSkill
- dev-manualSkill
- dev-optimizeSkill
- dev-securitySkill
- dev-shipSkill
- dev-tweakSkill
- game-optimizeSkill
- game-shipSkill
- game-tweakSkill
- marketing-contentSkill
- marketing-researchSkill
- marketing-screenshotsSkill
- project-addSkill
- project-appSkill
- project-memorySkill
- project-planSkill
- project-removeSkill
- project-researchSkill
- project-seedSkill
- project-syncSkill
- project-todoSkill
- project-tunnelSkill
- team-issuesSkill
- team-outsourceSkill
- team-reviewSkill
- team-verifySkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
21 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 38
Read CLAUDE.md ### Stack section
- Very specific: line 49
Run the two node -e snippets for the verify profile.
- Very specific: line 61
Run the queue snippet (no transition filter).
- Distinctive: line 63
If active feature found:
- Very specific: line 72
Run the verify snippet. Use requirements[] (id + description) as FEATURE_REQUIREMENTS for use in PHASE 3 (spec-vs-impl distinction).
- Very specific: line 84
If active feature found in previous step, follow shared/WORKTREE.md → Switch into existing worktree (Steps 0-4).
- Distinctive: line 100
No active feature or no worktree → skip switch, debug runs standalone
- Distinctive: line 129
If nothing available → continue without context (backwards compatible).
- Very specific: line 176
Pitfall match shortcut: if Pitfall match in INVESTIGATION_END is present and not "none" → add that hypothesis at the top with confidence …
- Distinctive: line 182
Test one hypothesis at a time — never combine multiple fixes in a single verification step
- Very specific: line 184
Check FEATURE_REQUIREMENTS (from PHASE 0): does the root cause match a requirement that was incorrectly implemented?
- Distinctive: line 213
Write ONE fix plan from PHASE 3/4's evidence — no agent fan-out.
- Distinctive: line 266
Default for Runtime Error / Logic Bug: skip the question, go directly to Step 2.
- Distinctive: line 347
No failures → continue to Step 3
- Distinctive: line 352
Ask user to confirm that the fix resolves the original problem.
- Distinctive: line 364
If PHASE 9 ended in an Accept outcome ("Accept as incomplete" in Step 1, or "Accept (mark as known)" in Step 2): patch the escalated item …
- Very specific: line 381
If PHASE 9 ended in a fixed outcome, or a still-broken/rollback outcome, do not write to the ship checkpoint here — the existing …
- Distinctive: line 409
No relevant pitfall → skip step without warning.
- Distinctive: line 417
Follow shared/SCOPED-COMMIT.md.
- Distinctive: line 421
Fallback: ask the user which files are related to the fix.
- Very specific: line 441
If this run resolved a ship-round escalation (PHASE 0's pre-fill was present): the next-step line reads /game-ship {feature} → resumes at …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Debug
Structured 11-phase debugging: context → intake → investigate → analyze → research → fix plan → approve → reproduction test → implement → verify → completion.
Process
Phase tracking — first action of the skill: call TaskCreate with these 11 items (status pending), then use TaskUpdate to set each phase in_progress at start and completed at end. On context compaction the task list remains visible — no risk of forgotten phases.
- PHASE 0: Context Loading
- PHASE 1: Problem Intake
- PHASE 2: Codebase Investigation
- PHASE 3: Root Cause Analysis
- PHASE 4: Context7 Research
- PHASE 5: Fix Plan Generation
- PHASE 6: Plan Approval
- PHASE 7: Reproduction Test
- PHASE 8: Implementation
- PHASE 9: Verification
- PHASE 10: Completion
PHASE 0: Context Loading
Todo: call
ToolSearch query="select:TaskCreate,TaskUpdate"first — both tools are deferred and unusable without their schemas. Then callTaskCreatewith the 11 phase items (see above). Mark PHASE 0 →in_progressviaTaskUpdate. If the tools didn't resolve, skip seeding and continue.
Stack context (optional, skip what does not exist):
- Read CLAUDE.md
### Stacksection - Read
.claude/research/architecture-baseline.md
Project context (optional, skip if not present):
Project context load (via shared/GAME-CONTEXT-LOAD.md):
profile: verifyRun the two node -e snippets for the verify profile. Extracts: stack, entities[] from project.json; structure, routing, patterns (max 15), full architecture (componentTree, scenes, signals, resources) from project-context.json.
Active feature detection (optional):
- Check
.project/session/active-*.jsonfiles Fallback: Backlog load (via shared/GAME-BACKLOG-LOAD.md):
profile: queue status: DOINGRun the
queuesnippet (no transition filter). Pick the most recently updated entry as the active feature.- If active feature found:
- Note as context hint for investigation agents
Feature load (via shared/GAME-FEATURE-LOAD.md):
profile: verify feature-name: {feature-name}Run the
verifysnippet. Userequirements[](id + description) as FEATURE_REQUIREMENTS for use in PHASE 3 (spec-vs-impl distinction).FEATURE_JSON: not present→ skip silently.
Ship-round escalation pre-fill (optional — only when this run was reached via a ship handoff):
check .project/session/ship-{feature-name}.json for a playtest.items[] entry with
escalatedTo: "game-debug". Found → carry its full record (title, steps, observed/expected, category,
and the round history that led to escalation) as pre-filled intake; PHASE 1 then confirms this summary
instead of running the full intake questions. This is otherwise a read-only lifecycle signal
(shared/DEVINFO.md § Implicit signals) — the one exception is PHASE 10 Step 0, which patches the
item's verdict back to the ship checkpoint when PHASE 9 ends in an explicit "Accept" outcome.
Worktree switch (only when active feature detected):
If active feature found in previous step, follow shared/WORKTREE.md → Switch into existing worktree (Steps 0-4). Debug-mode replaces two of the hard Step 4 outcomes with AskUserQuestion (debug is ad-hoc, not a hard pipeline step):
main_root + registered→ AskUserQuestion instead of auto-switch:- header: "Worktree"
- question: "Active feature '{name}' has worktree {short_path}. How to debug?"
- options:
- "Switch to worktree (Recommended)" →
EnterWorktree(path: expected_path) - "Standalone on current branch" → skip switch
- "Switch to worktree (Recommended)" →
other worktree + registered→ AskUserQuestion instead of hard-fail:- header: "Worktree"
- question: "You are in worktree {pwd_short}, active feature is '{name}' (worktree {expected_short}). How to proceed?"
- options:
- "Stay here to debug (Recommended)" → skip switch, debug on current worktree
- "Switch to feature worktree" →
ExitWorktree(action: "keep")+EnterWorktree(path: expected_path) - "Switch to main" →
ExitWorktree(action: "keep")(only if currently in a worktree; otherwise skip)
expected_path + registeredormain_root + not registered→ follow WORKTREE.md as-is (already there / continue)- No active feature or no worktree → skip switch, debug runs standalone
Git baseline (for scoped commit in PHASE 10):
mkdir -p .project/session && git status --porcelain | sort > .project/session/pre-debug-status.txtLoad learnings via shared/LEARNINGS-LOAD.md:
- scopes: [component]
- pitfall-prefix: true
- current-feature: {active feature name, or "none"}
Render LEARNINGS_CONTEXT block. Skip silently if no project-context.json.
Assemble DEBUG_CONTEXT (all info available for inline investigation):
STACK: {engine} ({language}) — {packages}
ARCHITECTURE: {baseline patterns or "not available"}
PATTERNS: {context.patterns or "not available"}
STRUCTURE: {context.structure or "not available"}
ACTIVE FEATURE: {feature name + status or "none"}
REQUIREMENTS: {requirements ids + descriptions, or "not available"}
ENTITIES: {data.entities or "not available"}
KNOWN PITFALLS: {LEARNINGS_CONTEXT output, or "none"}If nothing available → continue without context (backwards compatible).
Enter Plan Mode
Todo: Use the
EnterPlanModetool now — PHASEs 1–6 (problem intake, codebase investigation, root cause analysis, research, fix plan generation, plan selection) produce the fix plan — a reviewable artefact whose rejection sends the analysis back for revision, which is why they run inside plan mode as a genuine approval gate.AskUserQuestion,Read,Glob,Grep,WebSearch, Context7 MCP, and Agent tools keep working in plan mode; only file writes are blocked — which is fine until PHASE 7 (reproduction test write). SkipEnterPlanModeif plan mode is already active (seeshared/PLAN-MODE.md § Entry).
PHASE 1: Problem Intake
Todo: mark PHASE 0 →
completed, PHASE 1 →in_progress. Read '.claude/skills/game-debug/references/problem-intake.md' for the full intake protocol — classify (Step 1) → per-type detail questions (Step 2) → confirm summary (Step 3).
Outcome: confirmed problem summary (type + symptom + context + details) — input for PHASE 2 investigation. Do not start investigating before the user confirms the summary.
Ladder gate (before the full pipeline). Read shared/DEBUG-LADDER.md and apply its entry rule to the confirmed summary. When the signals point to tier 1 (a MEASURABLE feel/value tweak — "animation too fast", "hitbox 4px too big" — cause visible, ≤1-2 files) offer a quick path — AskUserQuestion: "Quick fix now (Recommended)" (adjust the value + live re-check via GUT/scene, skip the investigation/plan/repro machinery) | "Full debug pipeline". Tier 2/3 signals (cause unclear, cross-scene, intermittent, or a prior attempt already failed) → continue the pipeline as normal. This keeps the 11-phase flow for real bugs and spares a feel-tweak from it.
PHASE 2: Codebase Investigation (Explore agent)
Todo: mark PHASE 1 →
completed, PHASE 2 →in_progress.
Spawn one Explore agent (subagent_type="Explore", model: "sonnet") to investigate in an isolated context. This keeps source file reads and git output out of the main session.
Thoroughness based on problem type (PHASE 1):
- Runtime Error with stack trace →
"medium"(location already known via Godot console) - Runtime Error without stack trace →
"very thorough" - Logic Bug / Performance Issue / Scene-Signal Issue →
"very thorough"(cause unclear, broad scan)
Agent prompt: Read '.claude/skills/game-debug/references/explore-agent-prompt.md' and fill the {...} placeholders from PHASE 0 (DEBUG_CONTEXT) and PHASE 1 (problem summary).
Parse the agent's INVESTIGATION_START...END block — only the compact findings enter the main context.
Technique menu when the Explore digest alone isn't enough evidence: shared/DEBUG-TOOLBOX.md — its
browser-driven section doesn't apply here, but instrumentation (structured print markers with the
same cleanup discipline), git bisect run for regressions, and state-checkpoint diffs for corrupted
game state all translate directly to GDScript/Godot.
PHASE 3: Root Cause Analysis
Todo: mark PHASE 2 →
completed, PHASE 3 →in_progress.
Analyze:
Pitfall match shortcut: if Pitfall match in INVESTIGATION_END is present and not "none" → add that hypothesis at the top with confidence "high" as starting point. Still evaluate against evidence — if evidence contradicts, downgrade to "medium" and continue with step 2.
- Combine findings from all 3 investigation passes
- Identify patterns and correlations
- Form hypotheses about root cause
- Evaluate each hypothesis against evidence
- Test one hypothesis at a time — never combine multiple fixes in a single verification step
- Determine most likely root cause
- Check FEATURE_REQUIREMENTS (from PHASE 0): does the root cause match a requirement that was incorrectly implemented? If so, mark as spec-issue — PHASE 5's fix plan must then fix the spec deviation itself, not just the visible symptom.
- Identify knowledge gaps for PHASE 4
Present findings + hypothesis + confidence (high/medium/low) + spec-issue flag (yes/no) + research topics needed.
PHASE 4: Context7 Research
Todo: mark PHASE 3 →
completed, PHASE 4 →in_progress.
Skip if: root cause is purely internal GDScript logic (no Godot engine APIs or add-on libraries involved) → go directly to PHASE 5.
Cache order + query caps: shared/CONTEXT7.md (check the stack-baseline Library-IDs table before resolve-library-id).
mcp__context7__resolve-library-idfor Godot-related librariesmcp__context7__query-docsfor:- Known bugs/issues related to root cause
- Best practices for Godot patterns
- Recommended solutions
Focus: signal patterns → correct usage, scene tree lifecycle → proper node management, physics → collision layers/masks, state machines → proper implementation.
PHASE 5: Fix Plan Generation
Todo: mark PHASE 4 →
completed, PHASE 5 →in_progress.
Write ONE fix plan from PHASE 3/4's evidence — no agent fan-out; three agents speculating on identical evidence adds no new information. Spec-issue items (a requirement was implemented wrong, not just its symptom) get the same single plan — write it to fix the deviation itself, not only the visible symptom.
Root cause: {claim} — evidence: {file:line / log / failing assertion}
Fix: {change}
Scope note — deliberately NOT done:
- narrower hotfix: {…} → rejected because {…}
- broader hardening: {…} → deferred because {…}
Risk / blast radius: {files, scenes, signal/autoload contracts}
Reproduction test assertion: {what the GUT test must assert to prove the bug}The scope note is the point of writing this out explicitly: it's the same judgment call a minimal-vs-thorough-vs-defensive choice used to force, now made once, in the open, as part of the plan itself.
Second-opinion hook (auto-fires here, at most once this phase, before ExitPlanMode) — only
when the diagnosis is still contested: PHASE 3 confidence is medium/low, or the root cause spans
multiple systems (scene tree + autoload + physics).
Todo: Read
.claude/skills/shared/SECOND-OPINION.mdand follow it — the trigger auto-fires the consult (no confirm step) with INPUT = the root-cause writeup + the fix plan as drafted so far (game-debug fix-plan row of § Brief contents). Attended: show the digest, fold it into the plan beforeExitPlanMode. Unattended: Opus weighs the digest and revises the plan or confirms it, then proceeds. SetsecondOpinionUsed, carry the outcome to PHASE 10'sSecond opinion:report line. Firing this hook consumes the phase's one consult slot — the PHASE 9 dead-end consult will then logunavailable (budget)if this fix also fails; an accepted trade, not a bug.
PHASE 6: Plan Approval
Todo: mark PHASE 5 →
completed, PHASE 6 →in_progress.
Todo: Use the
ExitPlanModetool once the fix plan is written — present it as the plan output. Plan rejection lets the user give feedback; revise the plan and re-present, loop until accepted. After approval, PHASEs 7–10 (reproduction test, implementation, verification, completion) run in Sonnet. Skip this exit if plan mode is no longer active or the skill was started in plan mode by the user (seeshared/PLAN-MODE.md § Exit).
PHASE 7: Reproduction Test
Todo: mark PHASE 6 →
completed, PHASE 7 →in_progress.
Goal: prove the bug with a failing GUT test before the fix. Makes root cause concrete, prevents regressions, gives objective proof the fix works.
Step 1: Determine testability
Default for Runtime Error / Logic Bug: skip the question, go directly to Step 2.
For Performance Issue / Scene-Signal Issue, AskUserQuestion:
- header: "Reproduction Test"
- question: "Is this bug testable in an automated GUT test?"
- options:
- "Yes, write reproduction test (Recommended)" — Standard path for assertable bugs
- "No, skip — direct fix + live re-check" — MEASURABLE feel/timing/value tweak: adjust and confirm live, no test
- "No, skip — Visual / Rendering" — No assertion on game output possible
- "No, skip — Production-only state" — Not reproducible in test environment
(A MEASURABLE feel/timing/value tweak takes the "direct fix + live re-check" path — per shared/DEBUG-LADDER.md tier 1, no GUT test for "the animation is a touch too slow". GUT stays the test route for assertable bugs; there is no DOM-assertion path in Godot. "Skip — Performance without FPS threshold" also remains valid.)
"Skip" chosen → note reproductionTest: { skipped: true, reason: "{reason}" } and go to PHASE 8. For a MEASURABLE feel/timing skip, apply the direct fix and confirm live (per shared/DEBUG-LADDER.md tier 1).
Step 2: Write failing GUT test
- Location:
tests/regression/test_{slug}.gd - Class:
extends GutTest - Function name:
func test_{slug}_regression(): - Assert: the expected behavior (not the buggy behavior), use assertion suggestion from PHASE 5
- Setup: reproduce the minimal scene/node state that triggered the bug
Step 3: Run the test
godot --headless --path . -s addons/gut/gut_cmdln.gd -gtest=tests/regression/test_{slug}.gdExpected: FAIL for the right reason — match against PHASE 3 root cause:
| Result | Reason | Action |
| FAIL with assert mismatch matching root cause | Bug correctly reproduced | ✓ Continue to PHASE 8 |
| FAIL due to parse/setup error | Test itself is broken | Fix the test, run again |
| PASS unexpectedly | Bug not correctly reproduced or root cause is wrong | Back to PHASE 3 |
Step 4: Confirm
REPRODUCTION TEST: {file}:{function}
Expected fail reason: {root cause from PHASE 3}
Actual fail: {error output, max 5 lines}
Status: ✓ Bug reproducedPHASE 8: Implementation
Todo: mark PHASE 7 →
completed, PHASE 8 →in_progress.
Apply the fix from PHASE 5's plan. Document each change with file:line references.
When reproduction test was written (PHASE 7): the concrete success criterion for implementation is that the reproduction test must pass. Do not change more code than needed to make that test green + the original fix-plan scope.
PHASE 9: Verification
Todo: mark PHASE 8 →
completed, PHASE 9 →in_progress.
Step 1: Reproduction test (skip if PHASE 7 was skipped)
godot --headless --path . -s addons/gut/gut_cmdln.gd -gtest=tests/regression/test_{slug}.gd- PASS → fix provably works for the reproduced bug
- FAIL → fix incomplete, back to PHASE 8 (max 3 iterations, then the dead-end auto-fires the second-opinion consult first if
secondOpinionUsedis unset this run — readshared/SECOND-OPINION.md § Spawnand consult with INPUT = the reproduction test, this round's plan, the failed-fix file paths, ≤10 lines of failing output — debug-ceiling row of § Brief contents; show the digest, setsecondOpinionUsed— then AskUserQuestion with the digest visible: Revise the fix plan | More research | Accept as incomplete)
Step 2: Full GUT suite
Skip if: GUT add-on not present (addons/gut/ does not exist) → go to Step 3.
godot --headless --path . -s addons/gut/gut_cmdln.gd- New failures → AskUserQuestion: Fix regression (Recommended) | Accept (mark as known) | Rollback fix
- No failures → continue to Step 3
Step 3: Manual verification (only when PHASE 7 was skipped)
Suggest Godot-specific verification steps based on problem type (play scene, inspector check, Profiler snapshot, etc.). Ask user to confirm that the fix resolves the original problem.
PHASE 10: Completion
Todo: mark PHASE 9 →
completed, PHASE 10 →in_progress.
Step 0: Ship-round escalation write-back
Skip if this run was not reached via a ship-round escalation (no escalatedTo pre-fill from PHASE 0).
If PHASE 9 ended in an Accept outcome ("Accept as incomplete" in Step 1, or "Accept (mark as known)" in Step 2): patch the escalated item back into the ship checkpoint so the decision isn't lost —
echo '{"id":"{item-id}","verdict":"accepted","reason":"{short reason the user accepted this as a known limitation}"}' \
| node ~/.claude/scripts/ship-checkpoint.js item {feature-name} playtest— upserts by id, omitting escalatedTo entirely (do not null it — per the ledger's "omit fields
entirely, don't null them" convention) clears the flag. This is what lets /game-ship {feature-name}'s
resume skip re-checking an item the user already explicitly accepted
(phase-3-playtest.md § Resume entry's sub-exception), and what surfaces it as a known-issue badge
on the dashboard once the ship completes (phase-3-manual-finalize.md's dev-ship equivalent scans
this same verdict:"accepted" field into payload.knownIssues; game-ship's phase-3-playtest.md §
Step 3 does the same).
If PHASE 9 ended in a fixed outcome, or a still-broken/rollback outcome, do not write to the ship
checkpoint here — the existing escalatedTo flag stays as-is, and /game-ship {feature-name}'s
resume re-checks the item live (debug-round.md § 8).
Step 1: Learning Extraction
Per resolved bug, evaluate whether root cause + fix has cross-feature value. Filter:
- Do extract: race conditions, signal timing issues, physics layer mismatches, null reference patterns, scene lifecycle bugs, GDScript gotchas
- Don't extract: typo fixes, one-off config values, project-specific node paths, merge conflicts
Append to project-context.json → learnings[]:
{
"date": "YYYY-MM-DD",
"feature": "{active feature from PHASE 0, or directory primary segment of fix location}",
"type": "pitfall",
"source": "extracted",
"summary": "{root cause + where the fix was, max 200 chars}",
"tags": [
"{0-3 domain tags from LEARNING-WRITE.md § Tag Vocabulary, e.g. scene, game-loop; omit if none fit}"
]
}Dedup (per shared/LEARNING-WRITE.md): tokenize summary → check against existing learnings[] with same (type, normalize(summary), author) tuple. Match → skip. tags are not part of the dedup key.
No relevant pitfall → skip step without warning.
Step 1b: Consolidation gate
After the append (skip if no pitfall was written), run the consolidation gate per shared/LEARNING-WRITE.md § Consolidation Gate — > 60 active learnings → merge/archive down to ≤40, else a no-op. This keeps debug-heavy sessions from growing learnings[] unbounded between pulls/ships. .project/-only write; not part of the Step 2 code commit.
Step 2: Scoped Commit
Follow shared/SCOPED-COMMIT.md. game-debug deltas:
- Baseline: status form —
.project/session/pre-debug-status.txt. - OVERLAP policy: auto-include (the fix is the point of this run).
- Fallback: ask the user which files are related to the fix.
- Commit:
fix({feature}): {issue summary from PHASE 1}with bodyRoot cause: {summary from PHASE 3}/Reproduction test: {path, or 'skipped: {reason}'}/Learning: {pitfall summary, or 'none'}.{feature}= active feature from PHASE 0, or omit if standalone debug. - Cleanup:
rm -f .project/session/pre-debug-status.txt
Step 3: Output
DEBUG COMPLETE: {issue}
========================
Root cause: {summary from PHASE 3}
Fix: {what was changed, file:line refs}
Reproduction test: {path, or "skipped: {reason}"}
Regression: {N tests, X PASS, Y FAIL}
Learning: {pitfall summary added, or "no extraction"}
Second opinion: {consulted (fix dead-end) | consulted (fix dead-end) → revised | not offered | unavailable}
Next steps:
1. /game-ship {feature} → re-verify or rebuild as neededIf this run resolved a ship-round escalation (PHASE 0's pre-fill was present): the next-step line
reads /game-ship {feature} → resumes at the re-check of this finding instead of the generic line
above — game-debug wrote nothing to the ship checkpoint, so the ship resume re-checks this item via
phase-3-playtest.md § Resume entry's escalatedTo handling.
Todo: Apply the Next-Step Clipboard Offer (binary Ja/Nee) — read '.claude/skills/shared/NEXT-STEP-OFFER.md'. Recommended command: /game-ship {feature} → re-verification after fixing the issue.
Todo: mark PHASE 10 →
completed.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

