agentleFS
KhaledSaeed18KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude/skills/academic/supervisor-update/SKILL.md

supervisor-update

Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Turn the research log and recent work into a concise supervisor update or meeting agenda: progress since the last meeting with evidence, decisions taken and their reasons, results with numbers, blockers with the specific help needed, and the next steps with dates, in under a page. Use before a supervisor meeting, when asked for a progress email, or at a milestone.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Every progress bullet has evidence: a path, a commit, a number, a note.

    line 43
  2. Very specific:

    Run humanize before sending.

    line 49
  3. Very specific:

    Write to research/updates/YYYY-MM-DD.md and return the text.

    line 51

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Supervisors read updates between other things. The update's job is to let them help in the ten minutes they have: what moved, what is stuck, what decision they need to make. Everything else is noise.

Sources

  1. RESEARCH_LOG.md entries since the last meeting (or the period asked for). The log is the evidence; if it is thin, say so and ask the student what happened.
  2. Git history for the period (git log --since), new files under research/notes/, changed chapters.
  3. The last update or meeting notes, to answer what was promised.

Structure

Subject: Thesis update, 21 Sep 2026

Since 7 Sep:
- Read 6 papers on X (notes in research/notes/); the gap holds: none evaluates Y in setting Z.
- Built the data pipeline (commit a1b2c3d); 412 sessions collected, 9 discarded for missing labels.
- First results: variant B reduces latency 23% (n=10, SD 4%) at all sizes, table attached.

Decided:
- Dropped baseline C: its code does not run on our data format and reimplementing costs two weeks. Comparing against A and D only.

Need from you:
- Is a 23% reduction with n=10 enough for RQ2, or should I run n=30 (adds three days)?
- Ethics amendment for the follow-up survey: can you sign the form (attached) by Thursday?

Next two weeks:
- Run the n=30 sweep if agreed (by 28 Sep).
- Draft results chapter section 4.2 (by 3 Oct).
- Literature synthesis outline for chapter 2 (by 5 Oct).

Open questions carried over: 1 (dataset licence; waiting on the provider since 30 Aug).

Rules

  • Under 250 words for an email; under one page for an agenda.
  • Every progress bullet has evidence: a path, a commit, a number, a note. No "worked on the literature review".
  • Decisions include the reason and what they rule out, so the supervisor can object now, not at the defence.
  • "Need from you" is the most important section and comes before "Next"; each item is a question or a concrete action with a date.
  • Carry over open items until they are resolved, with their age; a supervisor sees a stuck item precisely because it keeps appearing.
  • Match the department's register: formal salutation or not, first name or title, as in previous correspondence.
  • Attach or link, never paste, tables and figures.
  • Run humanize before sending.

Write to research/updates/YYYY-MM-DD.md and return the text. Log the update itself as a /research-log entry if the student agrees.

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.