thoughtbox
CLAUDE.md64 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
NEVER say "probably", "maybe", "might be", "could be", or other conditional hedging. Before making ANY claim about: - Whether a file exists - Whether code is present - Whether a feature works - Whether something was done You MUST verify it first using the appropriate tool (Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, etc.). Do NOT: - Assume something exists without checking - Claim something works without testing - Say "it should be there" without reading the file - Trust previous agents' claims…
In this repository102 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- assumptionsSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- Codex-opus-4-6-promptingSkill
- Codex-promptSkill
- mcp-code-modeSkill
- deploy-team-hubSkill
- diagramSkill
- distillSkill
- effect-tsSkill
- escalateSkill
- evalSkill
- experimentSkill
- hddSkill
- hub-auditSkill
- hub-collabSkill
- implementSkill
- knowledgeSkill
- peer-notebook-delivery-guardSkill
- research-taskSkill
- session-reviewSkill
- source-command-hdd-decideSkill
- source-command-hdd-hddSkill
- source-command-hdd-researchSkill
- source-command-hdd-stage-adrSkill
- source-command-hdd-validateSkill
- statusSkill
- supabaseSkill
- synthesizeSkill
- tasteSkill
- teamSkill
- test-suiteSkill
- theseus-protocolSkill
- thoughtbox:debugSkill
- thoughtbox:decisionSkill
- thoughtbox:evolutionSkill
- thoughtbox:knowledge-querySkill
- thoughtbox:onboardSkill
- thoughtbox:refactorSkill
- thoughtbox:researchSkill
- thoughtbox:session-reviewSkill
- thoughtbox-teamSkill
- ulc-loopSkill
- ulysses-protocolSkill
- workflow-brainstormingSkill
- workflow-ideationSkill
- workflow-reflectionSkill
- workflow-revisionSkill
- workflows-compoundSkill
- workflowSkill
- workflows-planSkill
- workflows-reviewSkill
- workflows-workSkill
- workflow-tournamentSkill
- assumptionsSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- claude-opus-4-6-promptingSkill
- claude-promptSkill
- mcp-code-modeSkill
- deploy-team-hubSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 11
Before making ANY claim about:
- Distinctive: line 26
Read files before claiming they contain something
- Distinctive: line 27
Run tests before claiming they pass
- Distinctive: line 28
Check directory contents before claiming files exist
- Distinctive: line 29
Verify configurations before claiming they're correct
- Distinctive: line 35
When creating commits, you MUST use this format:
- Distinctive: line 78
Semantic versioning: Commit types determine version bumps
- Very specific: line 86
When participating in an Agent Team, bootstrap Thoughtbox as your reasoning substrate through the Code Mode surface (the only registered …
- Very specific: line 88
Load the cipher: read the thoughtbox://cipher MCP resource (reasoning-pattern shorthand, includes the multi-agent extension).
- Distinctive: line 116
Hard constraints first: When dispatching sub-agents, put decided constraints from the initiative spec at the TOP of the prompt as …
- Distinctive: line 117
Review output against spec: Before presenting sub-agent output to the user, check it against the initiative spec.
- Distinctive: line 118
No invented constraints: Never treat "minimize code changes" as a goal unless the user explicitly says so.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md 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
Claude Code Instructions
@AGENTS.md
CRITICAL: Always Verify
NEVER say "probably", "maybe", "might be", "could be", or other conditional hedging.
Before making ANY claim about:
- Whether a file exists
- Whether code is present
- Whether a feature works
- Whether something was done
You MUST verify it first using the appropriate tool (Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, etc.).
Do NOT:
- Assume something exists without checking
- Claim something works without testing
- Say "it should be there" without reading the file
- Trust previous agents' claims without verification
DO:
- Read files before claiming they contain something
- Run tests before claiming they pass
- Check directory contents before claiming files exist
- Verify configurations before claiming they're correct
Commit Message Format (REQUIRED)
This project uses Conventional Commits
When creating commits, you MUST use this format:
<type>[optional scope]: <description>
[optional body]Quick Reference
Types (use these exactly):
feat: New feature → CHANGELOG Added sectionfix: Bug fix → CHANGELOG Fixed sectionperf: Performance improvement → CHANGELOG Changed sectionrefactor: Code refactor → CHANGELOG Changed sectiondocs: Documentation only → Omitted from CHANGELOGtest: Tests only → Omitted from CHANGELOGchore: Maintenance/tooling → Omitted from CHANGELOGsecurity: Security fix → CHANGELOG Security sectionbreakingor add!: Breaking change → MAJOR version bump
Examples
# New feature
feat(loops): Add OODA loops MCP integration
# Bug fix
fix(analytics): Resolve concurrent write issue in loop-usage.jsonl
# Breaking change (note the !)
feat!: Remove deprecated thoughtbox_v1 tool
# With scope
perf(catalog): Cache hot-loops.json for faster sorting
# Documentation (not in changelog)
docs: Update README with loops documentationWhy This Matters
- Automated changelog: Commits automatically populate CHANGELOG.md
- Semantic versioning: Commit types determine version bumps
- Clear history: Easy to see what changed and why
- PR quality: GitHub Action validates format
If you create a commit, use conventional format. The changelog automation depends on it.
Agent Teams — Thoughtbox Integration
When participating in an Agent Team, bootstrap Thoughtbox as your reasoning substrate through the Code Mode surface (the only registered MCP tools are thoughtbox_search, thoughtbox_execute, and thoughtbox_peer_notebook):
- Load the cipher: read the
thoughtbox://cipherMCP resource (reasoning-pattern shorthand, includes the multi-agent extension). - Begin work — record decisions as thoughts via
tb.thoughtinsidethoughtbox_execute.
Hub coordination (workspaces, problems, proposals, channels) is exposed over MCP as tb.hub.* inside thoughtbox_execute (SPEC-V1-INITIATIVE Phase 4.1). Call tb.hub.register({ name }) or tb.hub.quickJoin({ name, workspaceId }) once and record the returned agentId. The FIRST registration in an MCP session becomes the implicit default identity for agentId-less calls — if you are a sub-agent sharing the parent's MCP session, pass your own agentId explicitly in every tb.hub.* mutation or your work is attributed to the parent. The local-mode HTTP surface (POST /hub/api) remains for non-MCP clients. The spawn-prompt templates in .claude/team-prompts/ use this tb.hub.* surface (rewritten in Phase 4.5).
What to Record as Thoughts
- Key decisions and their reasoning
- Hypotheses before investigation
- Conclusions after analysis
- Disagreements with other agents' conclusions
What NOT to Record
- Routine file reads or searches
- Every intermediate step
- Information that's already in the codebase
Decided Architecture (v1 deployment) — NON-NEGOTIABLE
- Execution plane: Google Cloud Run
- Control plane / persistence: Supabase — Postgres, Auth, Storage
- Billing: Stripe
- Session routing: single-instance Cloud Run (maxScale=1); transport sessions in-process
- NO Cloud Storage FUSE — all persistence goes through Supabase, containers are stateless
- DUAL BACKEND: FileSystemStorage (local/self-hosted) + SupabaseStorage (deployed). Both implement same interfaces. Neither replaces the other.
- Initiative spec:
.specs/deployment/v1-initiative.md
Sub-Agent Dispatch Rules
- Hard constraints first: When dispatching sub-agents, put decided constraints from the initiative spec at the TOP of the prompt as non-negotiable. Current codebase state goes SECOND, labeled as "what needs to change."
- Review output against spec: Before presenting sub-agent output to the user, check it against the initiative spec. If it introduces infrastructure or approaches not in the spec, catch it before it reaches the user.
- No invented constraints: Never treat "minimize code changes" as a goal unless the user explicitly says so. Deployment initiatives exist because code needs to change.
Improvement Loop Learnings
Auto-generated learnings from autonomous improvement cycles
What Works
What Doesn't Work
- Sub-agents optimizing for "no code changes" when the initiative exists to make code changes
- Presenting sub-agent output without verifying it against the initiative spec
- Writing sub-agent prompts before checking existing infrastructure. The prompt IS the plan — if you assume a workflow (e.g., local
docker build+docker push) without checking what's already in place (e.g., Cloud Build triggers), the sub-agent executes the wrong plan correctly. Always audit existing infrastructure before writing implementation prompts.
Current Capability Gaps
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.

