agentleFS
BuddhiliveBuddhilive/buddhi-cli/.agents/skills/audit-agents/SKILL.md

audit-agents

Skill1 starsChanged 15 days agoMITView on GitHub

Audit or rewrite AGENTS.md so it holds only lasting principles. Run it only when the user asks for it by name; never invoke it on your own.

5 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use implement-spec-with-codex, audit-decisions and 1 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • dzhngSkill

    implement-spec-with-codex

    Run [implement-spec](../implement-spec/SKILL.md) with Codex doing the implementation passes while you orchestrate, integrate, and review. Use when the user asks to implement a spec with Codex, or to run implement-spec with Codex as the implementer.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • wolverin0Skill

    audit-decisions

    Standardize remediation decisions, baseline-policy entries, and legal-review banners for accepted, deferred, or policy-blocked audit findings.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • dzhngSkill

    port-features

    Port a feature from an existing repository by copying its actual code and editing the copy, so its bug fixes and behavioral nuances survive, then naturalizing it to this project's names and environment. Use when asked to copy or port an existing feature (especially an exact copy), when moving one into a different framework or host, or when a previous reimplementation missed upstream behavior.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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. Distinctive:

    Read the AGENTS.md and the root readme.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Check the shape against the example below.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    Changes what they do: Delete a line a capable contributor already follows.

    line 27
  4. Very specific:

    Every other <…> is filled from the project's readme.

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Delete a section the project doesn't need.

    line 41

≈ “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

Audit Agents

AGENTS.md is read by everyone who will ever work on the project. Picture the next thousand contributors over the next hundred years: a line belongs only if it is still true, and still changes what they do, after every file, tool and dependency has been replaced.

Workflow

  1. Read the AGENTS.md and the root readme. This is a document audit: run no builds and no tests.
  2. Give every line one verdict, using the tests below.
    • Keep: a principle that passes every test.
    • Rephrase: a lasting lesson worded in today's mechanics, or too vague to act on.
    • Move: a detail someone needs. Name the owner it belongs to: a readme, a manifest, a skill or a spec.
    • Delete: repetition, history, or a line that changes nothing.
  3. Check the shape against the example below.
  4. Report the findings, highest impact first. Quote each line, give its verdict and the replacement text, and group repeats. Report no finding you can't quote.
  5. Edit only when the user asks for a rewrite. Then start from the example, write the file, and reread it as a newcomer with no history of this session.

Tests for a line

  • A hundred years. No commands, flags, paths, file or function names, dependency choices, tuned values, plans, status or bug stories. Keep the lesson and move the mechanics to their owner. The one exception is a pointer to an owner (a readme or a skill), which exists so the detail can live there.
  • A thousand people. A newcomer can act on it without knowing this session, this author or this month's work.
  • Changes what they do. Delete a line a capable contributor already follows.
  • Plain and concrete. A principle is not an abstraction. "Look at the picture" works; "match verification to the claim" doesn't. Prefer a short sentence with its consequence, and one example from the product over a general noun.
  • Iteration speed. This is the core principle and must be stated outright: optimize the time to feedback you can trust, run the narrowest check that answers the question, and run everything once, when the spec's implementation is finished. Flag any rule that adds process to every loop, puts the full run before a commit, merge, push or finished feature, or names checkpoints for it along the way. The full run comes earlier only when the next piece of work can't be trusted without it. Never trade away a real acceptance requirement for speed.

Shape

assets/example-agents.md is an AGENTS.md any project can adopt, and it owns the section order. Read it before judging the shape or rewriting.

To adopt it, copy it and resolve every <…>; none may survive into the project's file.

  • <skill: name> names a skill from the pack this skill ships in. Replace it with a link to that skill where the project installs it. If the project doesn't have the skill, drop the pointer and keep the principle.
  • <skill: the project's own …> stands for a skill only this project has. Link it, or delete the sentence.
  • Every other <…> is filled from the project's readme.

Delete a section the project doesn't need; add one only for a principle that fits nowhere else.

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.