grok-first
Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when Claude Code should delegate implementation, fixes, exploration, and approved git mechanics to Grok Build CLI while Claude specifies, decides, reviews, and verifies.
In this repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- opencode-firstSkill
- apple-design-accessibilitySkill
- apple-design-aiSkill
- apple-design-commerceSkill
- apple-design-connected-technologiesSkill
- apple-design-contentSkill
- apple-design-controlsSkill
- apple-design-foundationsSkill
- apple-design-gamesSkill
- apple-design-healthSkill
- apple-design-inputsSkill
- apple-design-iosSkill
- apple-design-mediaSkill
- apple-design-menusSkill
- apple-design-navigationSkill
- apple-design-patternsSkill
- apple-design-platformsSkill
- apple-design-presentationSkill
- apple-design-principlesSkill
- apple-design-privacy-identitySkill
- apple-design-spatialSkill
- apple-design-system-experiencesSkill
- design-maestroSkill
- forjaSkill
- product-studioSkill
- temperaSkill
- bambu-h2c-slice-printSkill
- bambu-print-troubleshootSkill
- blender-print-readySkill
- fdm-print-preflightSkill
- ads-videoSkill
- tutorial-videoSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Very specific: line 15
Use this skill for hands-on delegation only when the active harness is Claude Code and command grok is available.
- Distinctive: line 24
If Grok is unavailable, unauthenticated, or its version check fails, report the blocker or continue the work directly in Claude Code.
- Distinctive: line 28
Every other harness — Grok itself, Codex, ChatGPT, Pi, or another routed agent — works directly and must not invoke Grok CLI for hands-on …
- Distinctive: line 48
read-heavy repository exploration when raw reading greatly outweighs the resulting answer
- Distinctive: line 61
When waiting for CI, precheck that the PR is mergeable, confirm a run attached to the exact head SHA before polling, report every terminal …
- Distinctive: line 65
Keep in Claude Code:
- Distinctive: line 89
Before writing the work order, identify the repository's canonical instruction files and include their relevant constraints.
- Distinctive: line 92
If the repository designates one canonical file, point Grok to that file rather than duplicating its contents loosely.
- Distinctive: line 203
Every work order contains:
- Distinctive: line 213
Every hard prohibition needs a sanctioned escape hatch.
- Distinctive: line 229
Use one shared frozen specification plus a target-specific header per worker.
- Distinctive: line 243
Check every changed file against the work order and canonical repository instructions.
- Distinctive: line 245
Run focused proof itself or inspect the real command output.
- Distinctive: line 251
Run an independent frozen-change review before any ship or land.
≈ “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
Grok First
Hard Gate
Use this skill for hands-on delegation only when the active harness is Claude
Code and command grok is available. Before the first delegation in a batch,
run:
command -v grok
grok --versionIf Grok is unavailable, unauthenticated, or its version check fails, report the blocker or continue the work directly in Claude Code. Do not guess a fallback binary or authentication method.
Every other harness — Grok itself, Codex, ChatGPT, Pi, or another routed agent
— works directly and must not invoke Grok CLI for hands-on self-delegation.
This prevents recursive delegation and invisible work. There is no equivalent
of Codex's ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL router gate verified for Grok; do not invent one.
An independent, repository-provided review workflow may always be used after a
frozen change set. This skill does not claim that Grok provides a built-in
autoreview command.
Ownership and Route
Claude Code thinks, specifies, decides, and verifies. Grok types, explores, and executes a frozen work order.
Delegate to Grok by default when the prompt is a clear work order:
- implementation from a frozen specification; refactors; mechanical migrations
- bug fixes with a known reproduction, or diagnosis followed by a bounded fix
- CI, lint, type, and test failures; focused test writing or coverage fills
- dependency updates, scripts, and tooling
- read-heavy repository exploration when raw reading greatly outweighs the resulting answer
- git mechanics — rebase, merge-conflict resolution, and the repository's land workflow — are mandatory Grok delegations, never direct Claude execution, once Claude has made the land decision and every required pre-land gate passes
For an approved land operation, send one self-contained order covering: rebase → resolve → push → confirm a CI run attached to the exact head SHA → wait for successful/green CI → land. If that exact-head run fails, is cancelled, or never attaches, stop and report; do not land. Do not bounce this sequence back to Claude mid-flight. Claude retains the decision to land and must review the outcome.
When waiting for CI, precheck that the PR is mergeable, confirm a run attached to the exact head SHA before polling, report every terminal state, bound the wait, and prefer a repository watcher script when one exists.
Keep in Claude Code:
- architecture, API and UX decisions, naming, and any task where writing the specification is the work
- tiny obvious edits (roughly fewer than 20 changed lines)
- session-only tools such as MCP, browser/computer use, password managers, and account tooling
- releases, publishing, version bumps, credentials, and secrets
- the decision to land, pre-land gates, final review, and closeout evidence
Mixed task: Claude first decides the design and freezes a specification, then Grok builds it. Heuristic: if the prompt already reads like a work order, delegate; if writing it requires decisions, stay in Claude.
New work orders always use a fresh Grok session. Do not resume a long-lived session for unrelated work: stale sessions can reinterpret a new order as configuration or no-op. Portfolio or multi-repository work goes to the active session's designated maintainer/orchestrator skill when one exists. Otherwise Claude Code orchestrates the portfolio directly but delegates only separate, self-contained, per-repository Grok work orders; never ask one Grok worker to coordinate uncontrolled cross-repository work.
Repository Instructions
Before writing the work order, identify the repository's canonical instruction
files and include their relevant constraints. Never create or modify CLAUDE.md,
AGENTS.md, or other agent instruction files unless the user explicitly asks.
If the repository designates one canonical file, point Grok to that file rather
than duplicating its contents loosely.
Invoke
Grok starts with no reliable Claude Code conversation context. Use a temporary prompt file, an explicit session ID, a fixed working directory, and per-worker result/log paths. Never put a multi-line work order in shell history.
REPO="/absolute/path/to/repository"
WORKER="feature-short-name"
SID="$(uuidgen | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')"
PROMPT="$(mktemp -t grok-first-prompt.XXXXXX)"
OUT="/tmp/grok-first-${WORKER}-${SID}.json"
LOG="/tmp/grok-first-${WORKER}-${SID}.log"
MAX_TURNS=30 # Set deliberately for this work order; reaching it is incomplete.
cleanup() { rm -f "$PROMPT"; }
trap cleanup EXIT HUP INT TERM
cat >"$PROMPT" <<'EOF'
Work only in <REPO>.
Goal: <observable outcome>
Scope: <paths/modules to inspect or change>
Repository instructions: <canonical instruction file and relevant rules>
Constraints: <rules; do not touch X>
Non-goals: <explicit exclusions>
Proof: run <exact command(s)>.
Finish this work order only. If a constraint prevents an honest solution, STOP
and report the exact blocker and numbers; do not work around the constraint.
Do not start adjacent work or the next PR.
Final report: files changed; commands run and their results; test output or
failure details; remaining risks; blockers; and whether the work is ready for
Claude Code review.
EOF
command grok --no-auto-update \
--cwd "$REPO" \
--session-id "$SID" \
--no-memory \
--verbatim \
--model grok-4.6 \
--reasoning-effort xhigh \
--max-turns "$MAX_TURNS" \
--always-approve \
--output-format json \
--prompt-file "$PROMPT" >"$OUT" 2>"$LOG"command grokbypasses aliases.--prompt-fileavoids fragile quoting;--verbatimsends the work order exactly as written;--no-memorykeeps the fresh-session contract honest.--session-idgives deterministic recovery. Never use--continueor an argument-less--resumewhen workers can run in parallel.--output-format jsonwrites one machine-readable result. Inspect the result file deliberately; do not flood Claude's context by blindly dumping logs.--no-auto-updatesuppresses background update checks in documented headless scripting use.- Pin
grok-4.6and extra-high reasoning (xhigh) unless the work order intentionally selects a different locally available model. - Make
MAX_TURNStask-specific. Hitting the maximum is incomplete evidence, not success. --always-approveis only for an explicit, trusted repository and a scoped prompt. Prefer an isolated worktree for write tasks. Never use it for untrusted prompts, unknown directories, secrets, publishing, or destructive operations outside an explicitly approved land order.
For a long operation, launch the complete setup-and-Grok command as one
Claude Code Bash tool call with run_in_background: true. Each worker gets its
own tracked background call, unique SID, OUT, and LOG. Never fork multiple
workers from a shared shell launcher: that makes them invisible orphan processes.
Follow-up and Recovery
A correction to the same bounded work order may resume its explicit session ID:
FOLLOWUP="$(mktemp -t grok-first-followup.XXXXXX)"
cat >"$FOLLOWUP" <<'EOF'
Fix only <specific issue>. Do not broaden scope. Re-run <exact verification>.
Report changed files, command output, and any remaining blocker.
EOF
command grok --no-auto-update \
--cwd "$REPO" \
--resume "$SID" \
--no-memory \
--verbatim \
--always-approve \
--output-format json \
--prompt-file "$FOLLOWUP" >"$OUT" 2>"$LOG"
rm -f "$FOLLOWUP"Monitor the tracked background command for completion. Do not treat a quiet log
as proof of a hang: Grok's documented logging does not promise a reasoning
heartbeat. Instead, set a task-specific wall-clock deadline before launch. At
the deadline, inspect whether the tracked worker/process is still active: if it
is, report a liveness incident, cancel that tracked worker, and resume the exact
SID with a narrowly scoped continuation prompt. Do not kill merely because
stdout or stderr has been quiet. If the active harness cannot inspect/cancel a
tracked job, do not claim watchdog coverage; timebox the delegation and return
control to Claude for an explicit recovery decision. After two unsuccessful
correction rounds, Claude takes over directly rather than looping.
Prompt Contract
Every work order contains:
- Goal: observable desired outcome.
- Scope: repository path and exact relevant paths/modules.
- Repository rules: canonical instruction file and constraints that apply.
- Constraints and non-goals: including files that must not change.
- Proof: exact test, typecheck, lint, CI, or manual verification command.
- Report shape: changed files, real command results, risks, and blockers.
- Stop condition: complete only this order; do not begin adjacent work.
Every hard prohibition needs a sanctioned escape hatch. Pair “do not change X” with “if X blocks an honest solution, stop and report why; do not work around it.” A stop-report is a successful coordination result, not a failed worker.
For a multi-PR series, reuse the same frozen skeleton, cite landed precedents and their idioms, carry newly discovered traps into the next order, and end every order with an explicit instruction not to begin the next PR.
Parallel Workers, One Repository
Parallelize only independent tasks. For concurrent write work, use one fresh
worktree and distinctive branch per worker, based on origin/main; Grok's
verified --worktree <name> and --worktree-ref origin/main can create the
isolation. Give every worker its own tracked background launch, worktree,
branch, SID, prompt, output, and log.
Use one shared frozen specification plus a target-specific header per worker.
Landing serializes on the repository's land-workflow lock: if a worker finds a
held lock, it backs off, waits, and retries the failed step. It never recovers a
lock it did not create or repeatedly chases main while sibling PRs land.
For a sequential PR series, reuse one worktree but rebranch from current
origin/main for each next PR.
Coordinator Verification
Grok's report is evidence, not authority. After every worker run, Claude Code must:
- Inspect
git status --shortand the full diff; judge it as a contributor PR. - Check every changed file against the work order and canonical repository instructions.
- Run focused proof itself or inspect the real command output. A model claim is advisory, not verification.
- For a landed PR, verify against merged
origin/main, not the worker report: read the actual public surface and naming; inspect squash history; diff-stat forbidden guard/budget/baseline files; and scrutinize test-helper edits that could hide an incomplete migration. - Run an independent frozen-change review before any ship or land. Use the
repository's documented review workflow when it has one; otherwise Claude
Code performs a fresh review pass distinct from the worker's report. This is
mandatory even though Grok has no verified built-in
autoreviewcommand. - Iterate with the exact session ID only when a focused correction is justified; after two failures, take over directly.
Completion Checklist
- Claude Code passed the hard gate and used an explicit repository path.
- The work order was self-contained, frozen, and included proof plus a stop condition.
- The worker used a fresh explicit session ID,
--no-memory, and unique output/log paths. - Parallel write workers used separate worktrees and branches.
- Any push/land operation was explicitly approved, attached to the exact head SHA, and reached successful/green CI before land.
- Claude inspected the complete diff and real verification evidence.
- A landed change was checked on merged
origin/mainand passed a mandatory independent frozen-change review plus any required repository closeout review.
Economics
Win by moving generation and read-heavy exploration to Grok while Claude spends tokens on the work order, actual changed surfaces, and verification. Do not ping-pong trivia through delegation or reprocess Grok's narrative when the diff and proof already answer the question.
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.

