forgeflow-research-divergence-eval
Skill1 starsChanged 45 days agoMITView on GitHub
Preview or summarize local baseline-versus-divergent Forgeflow research evaluations without running models or the network.
In this repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .cursor/rules/forgeflow-lean.mdcCursor rule
- aegis-verifySkill
- agent-chat-offSkill
- agent-chat-onSkill
- auditSkill
- consultSkill
- create-agentSkill
- debateSkill
- discussSkill
- forgeflow-capabilitiesSkill
- forgeflow-consultSkill
- forgeflow-implementSkill
- forgeflow-research-divergence-adviceSkill
- forgeflow-reviewSkill
- forge-reviewSkill
- implementSkill
- planSkill
- quickSkill
- researchSkill
- shipSkill
- taskSkill
- update-forgeflowSkill
- verifier-verifySkill
- forgeflow-auditSkill
- forgeflow-capabilitiesSkill
- forgeflow-implementSkill
- forgeflow-lean-auditSkill
- forgeflow-lean-debtSkill
- forgeflow-lean-primeSkill
- forgeflow-lean-reviewSkill
- forgeflow-leanSkill
- forgeflow-planSkill
- forgeflow-research-divergence-adviceSkill
- forgeflow-reviewSkill
- forgeflow-shipSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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 8
Run the built-in deterministic eight-task preview:
- Distinctive: line 14
When the user supplies captured evidence, summarize it separately:
≈ “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
Forgeflow Research Divergence Eval
Run the built-in deterministic eight-task preview:
node scripts/forgeflow/render-research-divergence-eval.js [--json]When the user supplies captured evidence, summarize it separately:
node scripts/forgeflow/render-research-divergence-eval-results.js --evidence <repository-relative-json> --root "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" [--json]Both helpers are read-only. Do not write files, initialize Forgeflow state, record telemetry or memory, invoke agents or models, install dependencies, or call the network. Reject evidence paths outside the repository. If a helper is missing, report that Forgeflow needs repair/update instead of recreating its logic.
The preview proves only the task-pack shape. A results summary does not prove the runs occurred, scores were independently or human validated, divergence is generally superior, or results transfer beyond the eight tasks. Keep baseline and divergent evidence distinct. Bound quality, cost, latency, and reliability claims to the supplied sample and disclose scorer provenance, failures, and limitations. Identify unsupported conclusions explicitly.
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.

