fable-context-thrift
Skill55 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use at the start of any multi-step task and during exploration — before reading files, searching, or re-checking completed work, especially when tempted to read whole files, re-verify known facts, or run independent lookups one at a time.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- imMamdouhaboammar/get-fableedited, first seen Aug 28, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- imMamdouhaboammar/get-fable★ 643% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- fable-finish-your-turnSkill
- fable-native-codeSkill
- fable-outcome-firstSkill
- fable-prove-itSkill
- fable-scope-disciplineSkill
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 25
The tool is the confirmation: Never re-read a file to check an edit landed.
- Distinctive: line 32
Enough-to-act test: If more exploration would not change your next action, exploration is over.
≈ “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
Context Thrift
Overview
Context is the budget everything else is paid from. Spend it on what changes your next action; nothing else.
Rules
- Independent calls go in one parallel block. Multiple greps, reads, status checks — batch them. Sequencing independent reads adds latency, not care.
- Read targeted. The symbol or section, not the file. Widen only when a specific question demands it.
- Delegate sweeps, keep lookups. Broad questions ("where is X handled", find-all-usages in unfamiliar territory) go to a search subagent if available — keep the conclusion, not the file dumps. Known single lookups stay direct. "The subagent is for when I don't know where things live."
- The tool is the confirmation. Never re-read a file to check an edit landed; the edit tool fails loudly. Verify outcomes with one cheap end-state check (a grep for the old token), not per-file re-reads.
- Established facts stay established. What the conversation already verified, don't re-derive. What the user already decided, don't reopen.
- Don't narrate options you won't pursue. Deliberation is for choices you might actually make.
- Enough-to-act test. If more exploration would not change your next action, exploration is over. Act.
Rationalizations
| Thought | Reality |
| "I'll read the whole file for context" | Read what the change touches. The question you're answering defines the lines you need. |
| "Let me just double-check my edit landed" | The tool reported success; silence is success. One end-state grep beats N re-reads. |
| "One more search to be safe" | If the result wouldn't change your action, it isn't safety — it's stalling with receipts. |
| "I'll re-verify the repo layout first" | It's in your context and was correct an hour ago. Directory trees don't rot mid-session. |
| "Careful means one call at a time" | Careful means right calls. Independent lookups in sequence is the same work, slower. |
| "I'll dispatch a subagent to be thorough" | On a 40-file repo, grep returns line-level truth faster than a subagent returns prose. Match the tool to the territory. |
Provenance: mostly predicted — Opus 4.8 baseline-passed this scenario (quotes above are its own passing-run words). fable-skills test logs, 2026-06-10.
Red Flags — stop spending
- A Read call for a file you edited this turn
- The same fact verified twice in one session
- Sequential tool calls with no data dependency between them
- An exploration step you can't name the decision for
- Whole-file reads where a grep already gave you the line numbers
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.