agentleFS
AlpacaLabsLLCAlpacaLabsLLC/skills-for-architects/skills/architecture-knowledge/SKILL.md

architecture-knowledge

Skill390 starsChanged 54 days agoMITView on GitHub

Explain US architecture professional-practice terms, phases, deliverables, roles, delivery methods, AIA contract families, CSI documentation systems, or NCS at a high level. Use for questions such as “what is a CD set?” or “what does 50% CDs mean?”; do not use for code/jurisdiction, outline-spec, agreement-scope, or work-plan work.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before acting, read the host contract and this component’s declaration (skill:architecture-knowledge).

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the host's available source retrieval and reasoning capabilities.

    line 16

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

architecture-knowledge

Before acting, read the host contract and this component’s declaration (skill:architecture-knowledge). Load only applicable modes from the shared catalog; declarations do not grant access or permission. Use the actual host’s delivery route.

This is a native source-directory and explanation procedure with no registered operation IDs. Use the host's available source retrieval and reasoning capabilities. No Arch Studio executable, process capability, project creation or record mutation is required for this workflow. Follow the completion contract; a source listing is not retrieval or verification.

Sources and evidence

Find relevant original links in the source catalog, filtered by geography and topic. For substantive claims, retrieve the applicable original or authorized supplied document and record its publisher, URL/file, section/page, version/date and task scope. A linked or reachable source is not proof of applicability. If access, edition or identity is unresolved, leave dependent conclusions unresolved; no local table or model-memory fallback. Keep task evidence in the authorized workspace, outside the plugin.

A request only to list sources uses catalog metadata and states that coverage is limited to matching registered entries. It needs no source-content retrieval, setup or approval. Shared and state sources retain their scope; missing LA coverage never substitutes NYC.

Professional-practice orientation

Use professional-practice and architecture-knowledge topics for AIA, CSI and NCS navigation. Search original publications for the user's term. Interpret ambiguous “CD” from context; ask a short clarification only when the distinction materially changes the answer. Explain the supported meaning concisely with source/version and distinguish project-defined terminology from a publisher's terminology. Do not derive scope, billability, acceptance or phase completion from a generic term.

Do not reproduce protected forms, clauses, tables or reconstructed standards. For contract selection or clause interpretation, give source orientation and identify the need for the governing agreement and qualified review; this skill does not choose a form or provide legal conclusions. Route actual agreement-scope work to agreement, specifications to spec-writer, planning to workplan and geographic code work to its appropriate owner. No project setup or record writes are needed for terminology.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.