agentleFS
IamK77IamK77/Skill/skills/inquiry/reckoning/SKILL.md

reckoning

Skill2 starsChanged 31 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Analyse research results against the recorded plan, inspect failure patterns, and bound the claims. Use for evidence review before writing or making a research decision.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 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.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Check that runs, exclusions, and metric definitions match the plan.

    line 32
  2. Very specific:

    When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance audit --run "$RUN".

    line 41
  3. Distinctive:

    Write the narrowest claim the evidence supports, the strongest counterevidence, and the limitations.

    line 58
  4. Distinctive:

    If the run is compromised, recommend a corrected plan or rerun.

    line 71
  5. Very specific:

    If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending.

    line 73
  6. Very specific:

    After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN".

    line 79

≈ “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
<!-- Copyright 2026 IamK77 — Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See ./LICENSE and ./NOTICE · https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 -->

reckoning

Analyse research results against the recorded plan, inspect failure patterns, and bound the claims. Use for evidence review before writing or making a research decision.

Inputs

Experimental plan; raw results and run manifest; deviations; analysis code; intended claim.

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

audit

Check that runs, exclusions, and metric definitions match the plan. Identify missing or failed runs and data leakage concerns before estimating an effect.

Record these artifacts after doing the work:

  • Included, excluded, failed, and missing runs are accounted for. checklist check audit population --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
  • Metric definitions and deviations are checked against the plan. checklist check audit protocol --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"

When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance audit --run "$RUN".

analyse

Inspect distributions and meaningful subgroups, estimate uncertainty appropriately, and test plausible alternative explanations. Distinguish exploratory discoveries from planned comparisons.

Record these artifacts after doing the work:

  • Effect estimates, uncertainty, and failure regimes are documented. checklist check analyse effect --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
  • Ablations or other evidence address plausible alternative explanations. checklist check analyse alternatives --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"

When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance analyse --run "$RUN".

conclude

Write the narrowest claim the evidence supports, the strongest counterevidence, and the limitations. Preserve analysis code and the link from statements to artifacts.

Record these artifacts after doing the work:

  • Claims distinguish observations, interpretations, and uncertainty. checklist check conclude claim --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
  • Conclusions link to retained analysis and source artifacts. checklist check conclude trace --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"

When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance conclude --run "$RUN".

Branches

If the run is compromised, recommend a corrected plan or rerun; do not rescue it with unreported exclusions. A null or negative result is a valid conclusion.

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

An evidence-linked analysis and bounded claim set that envoy can communicate without overstating the findings.

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.

  • Inspect the population behind an aggregate
  • Expose analytic choices and alternative explanations
  • Test an explanation rather than only an outcome
  • Write the narrow conclusion supported by the record

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.