husbandry
Skill2 starsChanged 31 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Perform evidence-led maintenance and refactoring while preserving required behaviour. Use for cleanup, migration, and reducing an identified maintenance burden.
In this repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- canonSkill
- colorSkill
- formSkill
- graphicsSkill
- layoutSkill
- motionSkill
- pilotSkill
- systemsSkill
- typeSkill
- holdfastSkill
- aegisSkill
- assaySkill
- flightlineSkill
- gaugeSkill
- groundworkSkill
- gungnirSkill
- load-bearingSkill
- pilotSkill
- plumbSkill
- stationkeepingSkill
- crucibleSkill
- envoySkill
- forgeSkill
- ledgerSkill
- prospectSkill
- reckoningSkill
- forageSkill
- touchstoneSkill
- bearingsSkill
- bulwarkSkill
- keelSkill
- liverySkill
- lookoutSkill
- pilotSkill
- seaworthySkill
- trialsSkill
- wellspringSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 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.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 41
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance locate --run "$RUN".
- Distinctive: line 45
Add a characterization test where coverage is insufficient.
- Very specific: line 62
Before/after verification results and any gaps are recorded.
- Distinctive: line 71
If the change exposes an unresolved product decision, pause for that decision rather than hiding it in a refactor.
- Very specific: line 73
If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending.
- Very specific: line 79
After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN".
≈ “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
<!--
Copyright 2026 IamK77 — Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
See ./LICENSE and ./NOTICE · https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
-->husbandry
Perform evidence-led maintenance and refactoring while preserving required behaviour. Use for cleanup, migration, and reducing an identified maintenance burden.
Inputs
Target maintenance problem; behaviour that must remain; current tests; dependency and compatibility constraints; rollback requirements.
Run record
Use checklist 0.5 or newer for this SOP. Reading or reloading the skill must not reset work. For a new task, run checklist init "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}" --new --path "/absolute/project"; retain its returned ID as RUN. For existing work, use checklist resume "$RUN", then checklist show --run "$RUN". Outside Claude, replace the skill-directory variable with this directory’s actual path.
Commands below record work after it is done. Replace evidence placeholders with concise artifact locations and observations. Manual confirmations are not independent proof; a sensor pass covers only the command and inputs it observed. verify does not close a stage; advance checks that its required readings are fulfilled. Use report --run "$RUN" for the retained history.
Procedure
locate
Locate the actual maintenance burden in code and change history. Decide what is intentionally preserved and what can change; separate cleanup from feature work.
Record these artifacts after doing the work:
- Concrete code or change evidence identifies the maintenance problem.
checklist check locate burden --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>" - Preserved behaviour and compatibility boundaries are explicit.
checklist check locate invariants --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance locate --run "$RUN".
change
Add a characterization test where coverage is insufficient. Make small coherent changes, remove superseded paths, and run the tests that protect the boundary.
Record these artifacts after doing the work:
- Characterization or regression tests protect the affected behaviour.
checklist check change safety --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>" - The intended simplification is implemented without unexplained parallel paths.
checklist check change refactor --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance change --run "$RUN".
handoff
Inspect the final diff for accidental behavioural changes and document migration or rollback steps where needed.
Record these artifacts after doing the work:
- Before/after verification results and any gaps are recorded.
checklist check handoff verification --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>" - Consumers can adopt or roll back the change with known limitations.
checklist check handoff migration --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance handoff --run "$RUN".
Branches
If the change exposes an unresolved product decision, pause for that decision rather than hiding it in a refactor. Broad rewrites require evidence that a smaller coherent change is insufficient.
If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending. A changed requirement may need a new run; an accepted checklist edit uses resume "$RUN" --refresh and requires fresh readings. To abandon work, use checklist reset --run "$RUN" --reason "<reason>"; history is retained.
Completion
A maintainable change with preserved-behaviour evidence and a clear migration boundary.
After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN". This archives the result without deleting its history; it does not authorise any external action.
Reference shelf
Open the technique relevant to the current step. These notes provide concrete methods and examples, not additional phases; this entrypoint defines the run's completion conditions.
- Maintenance decisions grounded in change cost
- Choose a maintenance change for an observed cost
- From a reported symptom to a retained regression
- Retire obsolete paths without losing necessary knowledge
- Name the kind of change and its preserved contract
- Preserve behaviour while changing structure
- Make a maintenance tradeoff inspectable
- Maintain compatibility through a dependency or API change
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.

