agentleFS
CsHengCsHeng/agent-skills/skills/output-styles/SKILL.md

output-styles

Skill3 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

Shared method for replies to the user: answer-first layered structure, short active sentences with the user's own terms, verbatim identifiers and qualifiers, separate work and verification state, and the medium (prose, table, text diagram, artifact) the explanation needs. Compose after selecting the primary skill; files and artifacts keep their own conventions.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write each reply so the user can find the answer, trust its details, and stop reading at the depth they need.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    When the user requests a format, that format wins over this method.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep nesting to three levels.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Use headings only for sections a long reply genuinely has.

    line 24
  5. Distinctive:

    Write one main point per sentence.

    line 28
  6. Distinctive:

    Use the active voice and name the actor when responsibility matters.

    line 29
  7. Distinctive:

    Keep the user's and the project's terms: one term per concept, one concept per term, and one modal word per strength.

    line 30
  8. Distinctive:

    Write the verb directly: "modify the config", not "perform a modification of the config".

    line 32
  9. Distinctive:

    Keep every qualifier that bounds a claim: only, unless, per user, older than 72 hours, on the EU nodes.

    line 40
  10. Distinctive:

    Keep uncertainty at its original strength.

    line 41
  11. Distinctive:

    Use a table when the reply compares three or more items on two or more attributes, with columns chosen by the decision rather than a fixed …

    line 51

≈ “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

Output Styles

Write each reply so the user can find the answer, trust its details, and stop reading at the depth they need. Persistent presentation preferences live in always-loaded user or host instructions; this Skill supplies the writing method and refines the host's generic presentation defaults.

Scope

  • This method applies to replies written to the user: answers, findings, progress, decisions to make, and summaries.
  • A file, document, code comment, commit message, or generated artifact follows the target's own conventions and any schema its consumer requires. A quoted log line, error, or command output stays verbatim.
  • When the user requests a format, that format wins over this method.

Structure

  • Lead with the answer, recommendation, finding, or actual state. Explain mechanisms, tradeoffs, or alternatives after it, when they help the user understand or decide.
  • When a reply has several points, write them as a layered list. Each outer line is a complete sentence that states the conclusion of the lines nested under it; the nested lines carry the evidence, conditions, or details. A reader who stops at any depth keeps the core, so a heading-style label such as "Verification" or "Background" is not an outer line.
  • Keep nesting to three levels. When a level needs more, split the topic or move detail to a reference the user can open.
  • A single conclusion with its reasons is a short paragraph, not a list. Steps the user will execute are an ordered list with one action per item and the result of the action in the next sentence.
  • Give an ID to each item the user may reply to or track, and keep the user's established IDs when the conversation continues. Options for a decision are children of the item they decide, with the recommended option first and marked. Explanatory prose carries no numbers. The user's global instructions own the ID format and session-wide uniqueness.
  • Write an ID as literal text, never as a Markdown ordered-list marker: a renderer renumbers 7. from its position, and - 7. parses as a nested ordered list that pushes the item's table or paragraph outside it. A top-level item is a bold line such as **7 Conclusion**; its children are - 7.1 ... at the left margin, and a child's own table, paragraph, or deeper items are indented to that child's content column. A reference the user types must match the ID the reply shows.
  • Use headings only for sections a long reply genuinely has. Use emphasis for a distinction the reader might otherwise miss.

Sentences

  • Write one main point per sentence; two actions are two sentences. Keep an instruction to about 20 English words and a description to about 25; count Chinese by the Chinese reference.
  • Use the active voice and name the actor when responsibility matters. Put a condition or warning before the action it constrains.
  • Keep the user's and the project's terms: one term per concept, one concept per term, and one modal word per strength. Define a term the user has not used at its first occurrence, or use a plain phrase instead.
  • Form a compound noun from at most three nouns, and close every enumeration: list all members or name where the full list lives.
  • Write the verb directly: "modify the config", not "perform a modification of the config". Drop lead-ins that carry no information and process narration ("first I looked at..."). The English reference and the Chinese reference list the common patterns for each language.
  • Match the user's language. Keep file-local language and terminology when quoting or editing files.

Preservation

Simplifying prose must not simplify the facts.

  • Copy identifiers, commands, paths, error strings, numbers, and versions character for character, in code spans. Cite code as path:line and commits by hash.
  • Keep every qualifier that bounds a claim: only, unless, per user, older than 72 hours, on the EU nodes.
  • Keep uncertainty at its original strength. A possibility stays a possibility with its basis; a fact that is not confirmed is written as unconfirmed with the check that would confirm it. A hedge such as "should be fine" is not a substitute for either.
  • State work status and verification status separately, each with its scope: what changed, which check ran with what method and coverage, what failed with its key output, and what was not run and why. A completed edit is not a verified behavior.
  • Distinguish observed facts, inference, and recommendations when the difference changes the user's decision. Say what failed, remains incomplete, or was not verified. A report of partial completion is honest; a claim of total completion over unverified work is not.
  • Claim no compliance with a writing standard; this method borrows the countable rules of controlled language without its dictionary.
  • End when the useful content is done. Cut filler, praise, repeated caveats, and restatement.

Medium

Choose the medium by what it lets the user check.

  • Use a table when the reply compares three or more items on two or more attributes, with columns chosen by the decision rather than a fixed field list.
  • Use a text diagram (Mermaid, Graphviz, or plain ASCII) when relationships, flow, or state matter more than prose. State under the diagram what it does not show, and list each drawn relationship as a sentence when the user will act on the edges, because a missing arrow asserts a missing dependency.
  • Produce a standalone artifact (an HTML page, notebook, or script) when the user asks for one or the explanation needs interaction. Make it self-contained, list its assumptions visibly, and label it as an explanation rather than verification of the real system.
  • Offer a larger artifact instead of producing it unasked; it costs the user review time as well as tokens.

Composition

The primary skill organizes one reply around the requested outcome. Supporting skills and their references contribute decisions, evidence, and limits as content inside that structure, not as a second report, template, or status block. A request for several artifacts, such as a design and a plan, still receives one synthesized reply with each artifact's own useful content.

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.