messaging-framework
Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Core principles for technical communication such as commits, PR descriptions, branch names, and technical documentation. Use when writing or refining engineering-facing messaging and when other skills need a shared communication baseline.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Hyde-and-Larkin/product-marketing-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- mia-ppp/PMM-Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- Hyde-and-Larkin/product-marketing-toolkit★ 2same name
- mia-ppp/PMM-Skills★ 2same 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- change-consistencySkill
- engineer-agentic-aiSkill
- format-markdownSkill
- information-representation-designSkill
- living-artifactsSkill
- python-testingSkill
- relevance-first-information-designSkill
- reviewable-branch-diffsSkill
- review-ready-codeSkill
- securitySkill
- software-designSkill
- swe-methodSkill
- thoughts-to-artifactSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 24
Do not write solution-heavy PR bodies.
≈ “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
Messaging Framework
Core principles for writing commits, PR descriptions, branch names, and technical documentation.
Two Goals
| Goal | Purpose |
| Inform | Help the reader understand and remember what the work is about |
| Advertise | Argue the value so review effort feels worthwhile |
The Pain-Point Pattern
Structure messages around real pain points only:
- Observed problem
- Downstream implication
Do not write solution-heavy PR bodies. Reviewers will inspect the diff. Do not add test plan sections just to restate what is already visible in the changes.
Pain points should describe actual experience such as errors, duplicated workflows, expensive processes, or confusing behavior, plus the consequence.
| Bad | Good |
| "No common interface" | "Local-dev orchestration duplicated across environments, so copies drifted out of sync" |
| "Lost error context" | "Backend failures were mapped to the wrong outcome, so technical errors looked like domain results" |
Sentence Structure
Prefer:
- "
[Verb]benefit by mechanism" - "
[Verb]mechanism for benefit"
Examples:
- "speed up local dev by automating config and log formatting"
- "prevent data loss by fixing the asset sync race"
Format By Artifact
| Artifact | Format | Length |
| Branch name | TICKET/short-description | Short |
| Commit subject | TICKET: type(scope): verb benefit by mechanism | <=100 chars |
| Commit body | Pain points only | Medium |
| PR title | Same as commit subject | Short |
| PR description | Pain points plus one-line approach | Medium |
Anti-Patterns
- "Add feature"
- "Fix bug"
- "Refactor code"
- "Update dependencies"
- Solution checklists in PR bodies
- Generic abstractions instead of observed problems
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.