load-bearing
Skill2 starsChanged 31 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Explore alternative software architectures through boundaries, reversibility, and borrowed models. Use when the design space is still open, not for a mandatory architecture audit.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- danshapiro/skill-load-bearingtheir own version, first seen Jun 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- danshapiro/skill-load-bearing★ 4same name
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 repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- canonSkill
- colorSkill
- formSkill
- graphicsSkill
- layoutSkill
- motionSkill
- pilotSkill
- systemsSkill
- typeSkill
- holdfastSkill
- aegisSkill
- assaySkill
- flightlineSkill
- gaugeSkill
- groundworkSkill
- gungnirSkill
- husbandrySkill
- 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
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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 28
Treat the system as a library, a marketplace, then a postal service.
- Distinctive: line 46
If a direction is chosen, groundwork can turn it into acceptance examples.
- Distinctive: line 50
Read selectively when a thread needs another perspective or a concrete technique.
≈ “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
-->load-bearing
Explore alternative software architectures through boundaries, reversibility, and borrowed models. Use when the design space is still open, not for a mandatory architecture audit.
Starting point
An architecture is a distribution of future choices. Instead of asking which pattern is correct, imagine which changes each pattern makes easy, awkward, or impossible.
Bring a question, fragment, reference, or tension. Follow whichever association becomes useful; these invitations are not a sequence to complete. Speculation should remain distinguishable from an observed fact.
Thought experiments
Borrow a different institution
Treat the system as a library, a marketplace, then a postal service. What becomes the catalogue, the negotiation, or the address? Transfer one structural relation, not the entire metaphor.
Remove an assumed centre
Imagine the database, coordinator, or shared model vanished. Sketch how work could still happen. Then bring the centre back only where the alternative genuinely needs it.
Change the time horizon
Draw the design for a one-week experiment and for a ten-year institution. The disagreement can reveal a reversible seam rather than a compromise architecture.
A possible turn
A shared customer object ties billing, support, and identity together. A passport analogy suggests separate local records with narrow attestations; a workshop analogy instead suggests one working record with explicit custody. These are two different boundaries to explore, not two boxes to tick.
Leave the space open
Offer a few genuinely different possibilities, a sketch, an analogy, or a sharper question when useful. Do not turn every prompt into a scored diagnostic, a completion gate, or a demand for an action plan. The human may choose a direction, combine them, or leave the question open.
If a direction is chosen, groundwork can turn it into acceptance examples; assay can test the boundary that matters.
Optional references
Read selectively when a thread needs another perspective or a concrete technique. The notes supply possibilities, examples, and limits; none is a prerequisite or a requirement to close the exploration.
- Record a decision without erasing its alternatives
- Architecture as a distribution of future choices
- Names as descriptions, not rankings
- Control what collaborators need to know
- Represent questions and histories deliberately
- Questions that expose architectural forks
- Translate a quality into an observable promise
- Compare commitments and reversible experiments
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.