agentleFS
CyranoBCyranoB/web-forager/skills/tech-advisor/SKILL.md

tech-advisor

Skill10 starsChanged 56 days agoMITView on GitHub

Advise a technology choice through current evidence. Use for choosing tech products for a concrete use case, or assessing whether a technology is mature enough to adopt.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are 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.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use maturity assessment for “is this ready?” and product comparison for “which should I choose?” If intent does not settle the mode, ask …

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Before using tools, read source-access.md completely.

    line 29
  3. Very specific:

    Use available web search and URL-fetch tools.

    line 31
  4. Very specific:

    If uvx cannot run packaged search, use ddgs without touching the current project environment:

    line 40
  5. Distinctive:

    If packaged page fetch fails, use Jina Reader:

    line 52
  6. Distinctive:

    Read every source used for a material comparison or recommendation.

    line 69

≈ “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

Tech Advisor

Make a current, evidence-backed technology recommendation for a specific user or team.

Choose one mode

  • Maturity assessment: one technology is being considered for adoption. Read maturity-assessment.md completely, then follow it.
  • Product comparison: two or more products, or a product category, must be chosen for a concrete use case. Read product-comparison.md completely, then follow it.

Use maturity assessment for “is this ready?” and product comparison for “which should I choose?” If intent does not settle the mode, ask one focused question.

Tools and evidence

Before using tools, read source-access.md completely.

Use available web search and URL-fetch tools. Prefer callable names ending in duckduckgo_search and web_fetch; client-added prefixes vary, so inspect the tools in the session. Without session tools, run the packaged CLI in an isolated environment:

uvx --python '>=3.10,<3.14' web-forager search "your query" --max-results 8 --output-format json
uvx --python '>=3.10,<3.14' web-forager fetch "https://example.com" --format markdown

If uvx cannot run packaged search, use ddgs without touching the current project environment:

uv run --no-project --python '>=3.10,<3.14' --with 'ddgs>=9.5.2' python - <<'PY'
from ddgs import DDGS
results = DDGS().text(query="your query", max_results=8)
for r in results:
    print(r["title"], r["href"], r["body"])
PY

If packaged page fetch fails, use Jina Reader:

curl -s "https://r.jina.ai/https://example.com"

For a YouTube caption failure, report the access gap without forwarding the video URL.

The workflow requires both search and fetch. If either capability is unavailable, state what is missing instead of recommending from stale knowledge.

Technology changes quickly. Use [current year] in queries, verify the exact current model or version, and prefer recent first-party specifications plus current independent evidence. Label estimates and inference.

Shared quality bar

  • Read every source used for a material comparison or recommendation.
  • Match evidence to the user's region, constraints, and use case.
  • Include total cost and meaningful tradeoffs, not only headline specifications.
  • Cite material claims near the text they support.
  • Take a position when the evidence supports one; state what would change it.

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.