conductor
Skill5 starsChanged 43 days agoMITView on GitHub
Self-selects and sequences the right depth-skills proportional to task consequence, preventing both under- and over-analysis. Automatic skill selection, interference-validated sequencing, risk-aware activation, plugin architecture, meta-learning integration, and mathematical depth optimization.
23 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- 5thlayer/skillworkstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- zedarvates/frugal-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- crbnos/carbontheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- conductor-oss/conductor-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- tedzhao226/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- j/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Other versions23 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 23
- crbnos/carbon★ 2.8ksame name
- microsoft/conductor★ 494same name
- garagon/nanostack★ 206same name
- Baelfyre/Orchestra★ 27same name
- conductor-oss/conductor-skills★ 27same name
- melbinjp/jules-prompts★ 10same name
- sergeeey/Claude-cod-top-2026★ 9same name
- foundry-studio-lab/nzshrimper-senior-dev★ 4same name
- RizwanZafaris/product-manager-OS★ 4same name
- anthonymaley/Kerd★ 3same name
13 more not listed
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 repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- api-designerSkill
- copy-engineerSkill
- adversarySkill
- anchorSkill
- boundary-detectorSkill
- clarifySkill
- contradictSkill
- deep-thinkSkill
- descendSkill
- divergeSkill
- emergenceSkill
- excavateSkill
- fidelitySkill
- invertSkill
- meta-learningSkill
- negative-spaceSkill
- provenanceSkill
- reframeSkill
- shallowSkill
- teachSkill
- temporalSkill
- thresholdSkill
- verification-gatesSkill
- mobile-engineerSkill
- performance-engineerSkill
- product-engineerSkill
- refactor-engineerSkill
- system-architectSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 17 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 47
Use zero skills (shallow — surface response ships unchallenged)
- Distinctive: line 48
Use all skills on every task (slow — over-investing on low-stakes work)
- Distinctive: line 49
Use the wrong skills (mismatched — deep temporal analysis on a CSS color choice)
- Very specific: line 199
Plugin Loading (Automatic): If plugin_architecture = true, load from Plugin Registry v1.
- Distinctive: line 276
After each skill completes, automatically log:
- Distinctive: line 320
Must meet ADS Target from Step 2.
- Distinctive: line 323
All V1-V6 gates must PASS across all skills.
- Very specific: line 332
If DIVERGE ran: CIM(paths) ≥ min_cim (default 0.5)
- Very specific: line 392
If meta_learning_enabled = true, automatically run META-LEARNING:
- Distinctive: line 400
Skill Synthesis: If patterns suggest new skill combinations, propose synthesized skills.
- Distinctive: line 402
Policy Update: Update CONDUCTOR's skill selection policy (bandit/RL on selection outcomes).
- Distinctive: line 414
All V1-V6 gates PASS
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 17 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
CONDUCTOR v2.1 — Automatic Skill Orchestration Layer (Premium)
Mathematical Compliance: This skill implements the DEPTH-MATHEMATICS specification. It computes and outputs the final ADS, CEI, SI, EC, OV, and Depth Report. It validates interference matrix, enforces plugin architecture, integrates meta-learning updates, and optimizes skill selection for maximum ADS per CEI.
You have 26 cognitive skills. Each forces deeper reasoning in a specific dimension. The question: which ones, in what order, and how much depth for THIS particular task?
This skill automatically answers that. It matches cognitive investment to task consequence — proportional depth, not maximum depth. It automatically selects skills, sequences them correctly, validates they actually interfere, manages plugins, and integrates meta-learning for compounding intelligence.
The Failure Mode You Must Recognize
Without orchestration, you either:
- Use zero skills (shallow — surface response ships unchallenged)
- Use all skills on every task (slow — over-investing on low-stakes work)
- Use the wrong skills (mismatched — deep temporal analysis on a CSS color choice)
- Compose skills that don't actually interfere (cargo cult composition)
- Ignore plugin architecture (lock-in to current paradigm)
- Miss meta-learning opportunities (no compounding intelligence)
The right depth is proportional. A CSS fix needs zero skills. A database schema needs five. This skill automatically determines the right number, the right skills, the right sequence, and verifies they actually work together.
The Protocol
0 — PARAMETERIZE: Read Thinking Parameters
Read thinking_parameters:
risk_aware_activation(default true) — only activate skills where marginal epistemic risk reduction > costrequire_interference(default true) — validate interference matrix before deliveryrequire_recursive_audit(default true) — final recursive self-auditmin_cim(default 0.5) — minimum Compositional Independence Metric for DIVERGE pathsplugin_architecture(default true) — use plugin registry for skill loadingmeta_learning_enabled(default true) — apply meta-learning policy updatesauto_skill_selection(default true) — automatically select skills based on task profileauto_sequencing(default true) — automatically sequence skills with interference validationboundary_detection_first(default true) — run BOUNDARY-DETECTOR first for novel domains
Step 1 — AUTO-CLASSIFY THE TASK (Automatic)
AUTOMATICALLY analyze the prompt and produce:
TASK PROFILE
────────────────────────────────────────
Task: [one sentence description — auto-extracted]
Complexity: [low / moderate / high / extreme] — auto-scored
Consequence: [trivial / moderate / significant / critical] — auto-scored
Reversibility: [trivially / moderately / hard / permanent] — auto-scored
Novelty: [routine / somewhat novel / highly novel / unprecedented] — auto-scored
Breadth: [single-domain / cross-domain / full-stack] — auto-scored
Stakeholders: [count and types] — auto-extracted
Time Pressure: [none / low / moderate / high / extreme] — auto-scored
Domain Tags: [architecture, debugging, decision, product, security, etc.] — auto-tagged
────────────────────────────────────────Auto-Scoring Rules:
- Complexity: Count of distinct technical domains + interdependencies
- Consequence: Blast radius × irreversibility × stakeholder count
- Reversibility: Time to rollback × coordination needed × data risk
- Novelty: Distance from known patterns in training (0=routine, 1=unprecedented)
- Breadth: Number of distinct skill categories required
Artifact: The task profile. All subsequent steps use this.
Step 2 — AUTO-ASSIGN DEPTH BUDGET (Risk-Aware, Automatic)
AUTOMATICALLY compute budget from task profile:
DEPTH BUDGET
────────────────────────────────────────
Budget Score = (Complexity × 0.3) + (Consequence × 0.3) + (1-Reversibility × 0.2) + (Novelty × 0.2)
BUDGET A (Score < 0.25): Low stakes, reversible, routine
Skills: 0. Standard answer. Move fast.
ADS Target: 0.20
Skip remaining steps. Deliver.
BUDGET B (0.25 ≤ Score < 0.5): Moderate stakes, some novelty
Skills: 1-2. Auto-pick most relevant.
ADS Target: 0.45
Time: one additional pass.
BUDGET C (0.5 ≤ Score < 0.75): High stakes, hard to reverse
Skills: 3-4. Thinking + challenging + checking.
ADS Target: 0.70
Time: multiple passes.
BUDGET D (Score ≥ 0.75): Critical, permanent, unprecedented
Skills: Full stack. Every relevant skill in sequence.
ADS Target: 0.85
Time: thorough multi-pass analysis.
This task: BUDGET [A/B/C/D] (Score: X.XX)
Reasoning: [auto-generated from profile scores]
ADS Target: [value]
CEI Budget: [computed]
────────────────────────────────────────Risk-Aware Activation (Automatic): For each candidate skill:
Marginal_ADS_Gain = ADS_with_skill - ADS_without_skill
Marginal_CEI_Cost = CEI_with_skill - CEI_without_skill
Activate if: Marginal_ADS_Gain / Marginal_CEI_Cost > Risk_ThresholdRisk_Threshold: Budget B=0.5, Budget C=0.3, Budget D=0.2.
Artifact: Depth budget with auto-activation decisions.
Step 3 — AUTO-SELECT SKILLS (Plugin-Aware, Automatic)
AUTOMATICALLY select skills using the Plugin Registry and task profile:
SKILL SELECTION (AUTOMATIC)
────────────────────────────────────────
Task Profile → Skill Mapping (Auto-Applied):
[Complexity ≥ high] → DEEP-THINK (core)
[Consequence ≥ significant] → ADVERSARY + PROVENANCE (core)
[Reversibility ≤ hard] → THRESHOLD (core)
[Multiple approaches possible] → DIVERGE (core)
[Novelty ≥ highly novel] → DESCEND (core)
[Stuck / no good solution] → INVERT + REFRAME (core)
[Multi-part / long plan] → CONTRADICT (core)
[Summarizing complex analysis] → FIDELITY (core)
[Long execution / multi-step] → ANCHOR (core)
[Confident but feels easy] → EXCAVATE + INVERT (core)
[System with interacting parts] → EMERGENCE (core)
[Future-affecting decision] → TEMPORAL (core)
[Completeness check needed] → NEGATIVE-SPACE (core)
[Ambiguous request] → CLARIFY (core)
[Low stakes / quick answer] → SHALLOW (core)
[Teaching / explanation needed] → TEACH (core)
[Novel domain / high uncertainty] → BOUNDARY-DETECTOR (premium)
[Post-execution learning] → META-LEARNING (premium)
[Final validation required] → VERIFICATION-GATES (premium)
Domain Tags → Additional Skills:
[architecture] → SYSTEM-ARCHITECT
[product] → PRODUCT-ENGINEER
[api] → API-DESIGNER
[mobile] → MOBILE-ENGINEER
[performance] → PERFORMANCE-ENGINEER
[refactoring] → REFACTOR-ENGINEER
[copywriting] → COPY-ENGINEER
Selected for this task (AUTO):
1. [skill] — plugin: [core/premium] — reason: [auto-generated from profile match]
2. [skill] — plugin: [core/premium] — reason: [auto-generated]
3. [skill] — plugin: [core/premium] — reason: [auto-generated]
...
────────────────────────────────────────Plugin Loading (Automatic): If plugin_architecture = true, load from Plugin Registry v1. Each skill declares:
interface_version(must be "1.0")dependencies(other skills required)provides_interference(what it feeds to later skills)requires_interference(what it needs from earlier skills)composition_metadata(commutativity, order constraints)
Artifact: Selected skills with auto-generated justifications.
Step 4 — AUTO-SEQUENCE (Interference-Validated, Automatic)
AUTOMATICALLY sequence skills with interference validation:
EXECUTION SEQUENCE (AUTO-GENERATED)
────────────────────────────────────────
PHASE 1 — ORIENT (always first):
→ BOUNDARY-DETECTOR (if Budget C/D OR novelty ≥ highly novel) — probe knowledge boundaries FIRST
→ DESCEND (if problem looks familiar) — verify pattern match
→ DEEP-THINK (expand before narrowing)
→ CLARIFY (if ambiguous request detected)
PHASE 2 — EXPAND (broaden the search):
→ DIVERGE, REFRAME, INVERT, EXCAVATE
→ Interference: DEEP-THINK assumptions → DIVERGE paths / INVERT targets / EXCAVATE targets
PHASE 3 — CHALLENGE (stress the answer):
→ ADVERSARY, EMERGENCE, TEMPORAL
→ Interference: EXCAVATE C2/C3 → ADVERSARY attacks / TEMPORAL regrets / EMERGENCE risks
PHASE 4 — VERIFY (check the output):
→ CONTRADICT, PROVENANCE
→ Interference: ADVERSARY attacks → PROVENANCE evidence tags / CONTRADICT claim graph
PHASE 5 — DELIVER (final gate):
→ FIDELITY, NEGATIVE-SPACE, THRESHOLD
→ Interference: NEGATIVE-SPACE silences → THRESHOLD exit plan / FIDELITY tags
ONGOING — During extended work:
→ ANCHOR (periodic drift checks, every 3 steps)
META-LEARNING (post-execution, if enabled):
→ META-LEARNING — extract patterns, update skill library, update CONDUCTOR policy
VERIFICATION (final, if Budget C/D):
→ VERIFICATION-GATES — re-verify all gates, ungameable components, red-team, Depth Report
This task's sequence (AUTO):
1. [skill] — Phase [N] — provides: [interference] — requires: [interference]
2. [skill] — Phase [N] — provides: [interference] — requires: [interference]
...
────────────────────────────────────────Interference Validation (AUTOMATIC, MANDATORY):
For each required interference, auto-verify:
| From Skill | To Skill | Interference Type | Min ADS Gain | Actual Gain | PASS/FAIL |
| DEEP-THINK | DIVERGE | Assumptions seed paths | +0.15 | [measured] | [PASS/FAIL] |
| EXCAVATE | INVERT | C2/C3 → inversion targets | +0.20 | [measured] | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ADVERSARY | PROVENANCE | Attacks cite evidence tags | +0.15 | [measured] | [PASS/FAIL] |
| TEMPORAL | THRESHOLD | Regret → reversal cost | +0.10 | [measured] | [PASS/FAIL] |
| NEGATIVE-SPACE | EMERGENCE | Absent failures → interactions | +0.15 | [measured] | [PASS/FAIL] |
| BOUNDARY-DETECTOR | ALL | Void flags → assumption tags | +0.30 | [measured] | [PASS/FAIL] |
If any FAIL: Auto-re-run skill with proper interference feeding, or document why not applicable.
Artifact: interference_validation matrix with PASS/FAIL.
Step 5 — AUTO-EXECUTE AND LOG
After each skill completes, automatically log:
ORCHESTRATION LOG
────────────────────────────────────────
Skill 1: [name] v[version]
Phase: [N]
Plugin: [core/premium]
Finding: [key output or insight — auto-summarized]
Changed answer?:[yes — how / no]
Phase activation: 0.XX
CEI: 0.XX
SI contribution: N
Interference provided: [what fed to next skills]
Interference received: [what received from prior skills]
Gates verified: [V1-V6]
Cognitive traces: [heatmap, graph, landscape]
Skill 2: [name] v[version]
...
Answer revised: [total count of revisions]
Total depth cycles: [count of skills executed]
Final ADS: [computed]
Final CEI: [computed]
Final SI: [computed]
Final EC: [computed]
Final OV: [computed]
ADS/CEI Ratio: [computed]
Diminishing returns reached?: [yes — last [N] skills found nothing new / no]
Meta-learning update: [patterns extracted, skills synthesized, policy updated]
────────────────────────────────────────Step 6 — AUTO-FINAL VALIDATION & DEPTH REPORT
AUTOMATICALLY compute and verify:
6.1 Final ADS Computation
ADS = Σᵢ wᵢ × φᵢ / Σᵢ wᵢMust meet ADS Target from Step 2.
6.2 Gate Verification
All V1-V6 gates must PASS across all skills.
6.3 Ungameable Gates (Budget C/D)
At least 2 of 3 must PASS:
- Human Eval on 10 novel tasks
- Held-Out Task Benchmark
- Ensemble Critic (different model)
6.3 Compositional Independence (CIM)
If DIVERGE ran: CIM(paths) ≥ min_cim (default 0.5)
6.4 Recursive Stability
Apply CONDUCTOR to CONDUCTOR output:
- RSM > 0.95 for 2 consecutive depths
- SI not decreasing
6.5 Depth Report Generation (Automatic)
{
"report_id": "dr_<timestamp>_<hash>",
"task_hash": "sha256(task_description)",
"model": "model_identifier",
"task_profile": {...},
"budget": "BUDGET_[A/B/C/D]",
"skills_executed": [
{"name": "deep-think", "version": "2.0", "plugin": "core", "phase": 1, "activation": 0.XX},
{"name": "adversary", "version": "2.0", "plugin": "core", "phase": 3, "activation": 0.XX}
],
"metrics": {
"ads": 0.XX,
"cei": 0.XX,
"si": N,
"ec": 0.XX,
"ov": 0.XX,
"ads_cei_ratio": 0.XX
},
"gates": {
"v1_assumption_coverage": true,
"v2_alternative_independence": true,
"v3_opposition_authenticity": true,
"v4_temporal_consistency": true,
"v5_evidence_calibration": true,
"v6_recursive_stability": true,
"ungameable_human_eval": true,
"ungameable_held_out": true,
"ungameable_ensemble": true
},
"interference_validation": {"all_required_pass": true, "matrix": [...]},
"cim": 0.XX,
"recursive_stability": 0.XX,
"threshold": "CATEGORY_[1-4]",
"verdict": "PASS",
"limitations": ["..."],
"reproducibility": {
"seed": 42,
"temperature": 0.0,
"skill_versions": {"deep-think": "2.0", "adversary": "2.0", ...},
"thinking_parameters": {...}
}
}Artifact: depth_report — the final verifiable output.
Step 7 — AUTO-META-LEARNING UPDATE (if enabled)
If meta_learning_enabled = true, automatically run META-LEARNING:
- Pattern Extraction: From orchestration log, extract:
- Which skill sequences worked for which task profiles
- Which interferences were most valuable
- Which gates failed most often
- ADS/CEI ratios per skill per task type
- Skill Synthesis: If patterns suggest new skill combinations, propose synthesized skills.
- Policy Update: Update CONDUCTOR's skill selection policy (bandit/RL on selection outcomes).
- Regression Check: New policy must not degrade performance on benchmark suite.
Artifact: meta_learning_update with patterns, proposals, policy delta, regression results.
Step 8 — AUTO-STOP WHEN WARRANTED
AUTOMATICALLY stop when:
- ADS Target met AND additional skills show diminishing returns (ΔADS < 0.02 per skill)
- All V1-V6 gates PASS
- Interference validation PASSES
- CIM ≥ threshold
- Recursive stability CONVERGED
- Confidence stable across checks
- ADS/CEI ratio peaks (additional skills cost more than they add)
Over-analysis is its own failure mode. When the budget is met and returns are diminishing: deliver.
The Deeper Purpose
Without orchestration, the user must manually select skills — requiring knowledge of the library and the task's profile. With this skill, the model automatically self-selects proportional depth, validates that skills actually compose, manages plugin architecture for future-proofing, and integrates meta-learning for compounding intelligence. Small tasks get fast answers. Large tasks get deep exploration. The system gets smarter over time — automatically.
MATHEMATICS COMPLIANCE
Phase Activation Output
This skill contributes to Phase 5 (meta). It outputs:
{
"phase": 5,
"skill": "conductor",
"artifact_completeness": 0.XX,
"gate_pass_rate": 0.XX,
"external_validity": 0.XX,
"human_eval": 0.XX,
"phase_activation": 0.XX
}CEI Components
- Artifacts produced: task_profile (1.0), depth_budget (1.0), skill_selection (1.0), execution_sequence (1.0), orchestration_log (2.0), interference_validation (3.0), plugin_manifest (1.0), meta_learning_update (3.0), depth_report (2.0)
- Total complexity weight: 15.0
SI Components
- C2/C3 assumptions: [from task profile]
- Contrarian viable: [from DIVERGE]
- Fatal attacks: [from ADVERSARY]
- Boundary violations: [from BOUNDARY-DETECTOR]
- Assumption reversals: [from EXCAVATE]
Cognitive Traces Produced
- Activation Heatmap (aggregated from all skills)
- Assumption Dependency Graph (aggregated)
- Decision Landscape (from TEMPORAL/DIVERGE)
Gates Verified
- V1 [x] V2 [x] V3 [x] V4 [x] V5 [x] V6
- Human Eval [ ] Held-Out [ ] Ensemble (delegated to VERIFICATION-GATES)
Required Interferences
- From ALL SKILLS: Phase activations → ADS computation
- From ALL SKILLS: Interference matrix → validation
- From META-LEARNING: Policy updates → next task optimization
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.

