source-command-opsx-explore
Skill968 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub
Enter explore mode - think through ideas, investigate problems, clarify requirements
4 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- yinzhenyu-su/skillsedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- zhe-qi/clhoria-templateedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- escwxyz/skills-reedited, first seen May 20, 2026
- antech2-async/SpecHealedited, first seen May 12, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 4
- zhe-qi/clhoria-template★ 193100% same
- yinzhenyu-su/skills★ 1100% same
- antech2-async/SpecHeal★ 0100% same
- escwxyz/skills-re★ 0100% 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 repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-proposeSkill
- source-command-opsx-applySkill
- source-command-opsx-archiveSkill
- source-command-opsx-proposeSkill
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-proposeSkill
- gtrk-ai-dramaSkill
- gtrk-compositeSkill
- gtrk-coverSkill
- gtrk-food-recapSkill
- gtrk-live-slicingSkill
- gtrk-long2shortSkill
- gtrk-matrixSkill
- gtrk-mgSkill
- gtrk-music-visualizerSkill
- gtrk-narrationSkill
- gtrk-oralcutSkill
- gtrk-ref-readingSkill
- gtrk-splitterSkill
- gtrk-style-makerSkill
- gtrk-talking-headSkill
- gtrk-toolsSkill
- gtrk-transcriptSkill
- gtrk-travel-recapSkill
- gtrk-vlog-docuSkill
- gtrk-voiceoverSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. 12 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
12
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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
- Very specific: line 10
Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command opsx-explore.
- Common: line 31
Curious, not prescriptive: - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
- Common: line 33
Visual: - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
- Common: line 34
Adaptive: - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
- Common: line 35
Patient: - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
- Common: line 45
Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
- Common: line 99
If there are active changes
- Common: line 103
If the user mentioned a specific change name, read its artifacts for context.
- Common: line 114
If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
- Common: line 149
Ask the same questions every time
- Common: line 166
When things crystallize, you might offer a summary - but it's optional.
- Common: line 172
Don't implement: - Never write code or implement features.
- Common: line 173
Don't fake understanding: - If something is unclear, dig deeper
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
source-command-opsx-explore
Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command opsx-explore.
Command Template
Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing. You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
This is a stance, not a workflow. There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
Input: The argument after /opsx:explore is whatever the user wants to think about. Could be:
- A vague idea: "real-time collaboration"
- A specific problem: "the auth system is getting unwieldy"
- A change name: "add-dark-mode" (to explore in context of that change)
- A comparison: "postgres vs sqlite for this"
- Nothing (just enter explore mode)
The Stance
- Curious, not prescriptive - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
- Open threads, not interrogations - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
- Visual - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
- Adaptive - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
- Patient - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
- Grounded - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
What You Might Do
Depending on what the user brings, you might:
Explore the problem space
- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
- Challenge assumptions
- Reframe the problem
- Find analogies
Investigate the codebase
- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
- Find integration points
- Identify patterns already in use
- Surface hidden complexity
Compare options
- Brainstorm multiple approaches
- Build comparison tables
- Sketch tradeoffs
- Recommend a path (if asked)
Visualize
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Use ASCII diagrams liberally │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ │
│ │ State │────────▶│ State │ │
│ │ A │ │ B │ │
│ └────────┘ └────────┘ │
│ │
│ System diagrams, state machines, │
│ data flows, architecture sketches, │
│ dependency graphs, comparison tables │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘Surface risks and unknowns
- Identify what could go wrong
- Find gaps in understanding
- Suggest spikes or investigations
OpenSpec Awareness
You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.
Check for context
At the start, quickly check what exists:
openspec list --jsonThis tells you:
- If there are active changes
- Their names, schemas, and status
- What the user might be working on
If the user mentioned a specific change name, read its artifacts for context.
When no change exists
Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:
- "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
- Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize
When a change exists
If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
- Read existing artifacts for context
openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.mdopenspec/changes/<name>/design.mdopenspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md- etc.
- Reference them naturally in conversation
- "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
- "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."
Offer to capture when decisions are made
Insight Type Where to Capture New requirement discovered specs/<capability>/spec.mdRequirement changed specs/<capability>/spec.mdDesign decision made design.mdScope changed proposal.mdNew work identified tasks.mdAssumption invalidated Relevant artifact Example offers:
- "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
- "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
- "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"
- The user decides - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.
What You Don't Have To Do
- Follow a script
- Ask the same questions every time
- Produce a specific artifact
- Reach a conclusion
- Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
- Be brief (this is thinking time)
Ending Discovery
There's no required ending. Discovery might:
- Flow into a proposal: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
- Result in artifact updates: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
- Just provide clarity: User has what they need, moves on
- Continue later: "We can pick this up anytime"
When things crystallize, you might offer a summary - but it's optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
Guardrails
- Don't implement - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
- Don't fake understanding - If something is unclear, dig deeper
- Don't rush - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
- Don't force structure - Let patterns emerge naturally
- Don't auto-capture - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
- Do visualize - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
- Do explore the codebase - Ground discussions in reality
- Do question assumptions - Including the user's and your own
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.

