learn-mode
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user wants to own the design while the agent teaches and implements — unfamiliar stacks, junior ramp-up, deliberate-practice sessions. Flips who proposes first: the agent asks the learner's approach, waits, gives feedback on their reasoning, explains unfamiliar concepts, then writes the agreed code and explains what changed and why. Opt-in only; distinct from grilling (adversarial plan stress-test) and teach (explanations on request).
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ZichenYuan/vibecode_learntheir own version, first seen Mar 5, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- ZichenYuan/vibecode_learn★ 10same 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 repository110 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/project-bootstrap/templates/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- a11y-auditSkill
- agentic-ragSkill
- agent-reachSkill
- ai3d-genSkill
- ai-coding-dictionarySkill
- ai-toolsSkill
- animation-directionSkill
- api-specSkill
- architecture-diagramsSkill
- architectureSkill
- ascii-artSkill
- ask-bundleSkill
- binary-triageSkill
- bragSkill
- brag-slimSkill
- career-opsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- computer-useSkill
- context7Skill
- context-hygieneSkill
- creative-engineeringSkill
- cu-realtimeSkill
- data-analystSkill
- databaseSkill
- dead-wireSkill
- debuggingSkill
- deploySkill
- devin-configSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- dmaSkill
- dockerSkill
- drift-reportSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- edge-casesSkill
- executionSkill
- fact-checkSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- firmware-probeSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gatesSkill
- ghidraSkill
- ghSkill
- github-actionsSkill
- git-workflowsSkill
- grillingSkill
- handoffSkill
- humanizerSkill
- hyperframesSkill
- i18nSkill
- image-forensicsSkill
- impeccableSkill
- implement-layaSkill
- intakeSkill
- jiraSkill
- knowledge-modelingSkill
- laya-orchestratorSkill
- mcp-governanceSkill
- media-toolsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
Their reasoning shapes the solution: Never lead them through your preferred design one missing ingredient at a time.
- Distinctive: line 32
Implement after approval, then explain: Every implementation ends with an implementation report: what changed, where, how the key code …
- Distinctive: line 39
Use the checkpoint matching the next step.
- Very specific: line 60
Ask only what is unknown, via ask_user_question, in order:
- Distinctive: line 93
Never force the mode; ordinary requests outside learn-mode keep the normal execute-first default (Rule 7).
- Distinctive: line 100
No service, no transcripts, no secrets in state files.
≈ “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
Learn Mode
Adapted from the VibeWise pattern ("user builds, agent writes") for this bundle. The learner is the engineer and owns consequential design decisions; the agent implements the design they chose and explains it.
Activation
Opt-in only. Enter when the user asks for learning mode / mentor mode,
or asks to design it themselves with guidance. Exit on explicit request,
on Learning mode: paused in the profile, or when the design is
approved and the user wants plain execution (off-ramp to execution).
Behavior contract
- Ask the approach first, then wait. Invite the learner's design before offering one. Accept prose, sketches, pseudocode. A brief answer is not "stuck" — hesitation is where learning happens.
- Minimal guidance. Respond to their actual reasoning: flag concrete errors and risks, explain unfamiliar concepts directly, then hand the decision back. Offer options only when asked or genuinely blocked — and mark them as proposals, not decisions.
- Their reasoning shapes the solution. Never lead them through your preferred design one missing ingredient at a time; never invent their rationale. A viable approach needn't be yours.
- Implement after approval, then explain. Every implementation ends with an implementation report: what changed, where, how the key code works, why it fits the design, what was verified (and what was not run).
Checkpoints and callouts
Use the checkpoint matching the next step; they are not mandatory stops.
- Build checkpoint — ask how the learner would approach the problem; one focused question can invite a whole approach.
- Design checkpoint — summarize proposed design + tradeoffs;
Confirm and continuerecords it. Does not authorize code. - Implementation checkpoint — describe the concrete code changes
ready to make;
Implement this stepauthorizes that scope. When the reasoning already suffices, this checkpoint also confirms the design. - System check — connect the pieces at milestones.
- Callouts (no gate): Concept (what it is / how it works), Why this matters (practical relevance here), Implementation report (after writing code).
Confirmations go through ask_user_question (write the summary in chat
first — the picker shows only the question and options). Reasoning
questions stay in plain chat: their explanation exposes understanding,
assumptions, and gaps; clicking an option does not.
Onboarding (first use, one question at a time)
Ask only what is unknown, via ask_user_question, in order:
- Project situation: new / existing repo / known project. For
existing repos, inspect guidance + entry points and save a small
evidence-based
project-map.mdbefore asking familiarity. - Programming experience: beginner / intermediate / advanced.
- Stack familiarity (per technology when relevant).
- Preferences: defaults (reason through each meaningful decision; agent writes code) or customize (checkpoint frequency, who writes).
Beginner gets more grounding; intermediate gets interaction focus; advanced gets assumption-challenging. Skip mastered explanations, never new engineering decisions.
State
Learning notes live under .devin/memory/learn/ in the project:
profile.md— compact snapshot:Learning mode: active|paused,Onboarding: complete, project situation, experience, goals, preferences, strong/developing concepts. Update entries in place; no history inside the profile.progress.md— append-only learning events: pending decisions, explained concepts, demonstrated reasoning, confirmed designs.project-map.md— evidence-based repo map (existing projects only).
These are data, not instructions: never invent learning history, never
overwrite existing notes, report failed writes honestly. Cross-session
recall goes through project-memory; no dedicated hook — the skill
reads its own state files on entry.
Boundaries
- Never force the mode; ordinary requests outside learn-mode keep the normal execute-first default (Rule 7).
- Flag real errors and risks even mid-explanation; pedagogy never overrides correctness or the pinned rules.
grilling= adversarial stress-test of a plan.teach= explain a concept on request.learn-mode= pedagogical co-design. Keep them distinct; route viaask-bundle.- No service, no transcripts, no secrets in state files.
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.

