model-check
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Recommend the cheapest safe model, effort, and execution shape for a Loop-Dee-Loup slice before dispatch. Advisory only.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- derwells/learn-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- derwells/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- indranilbanerjee/socialforgetheir own version, first seen Jul 29, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- indranilbanerjee/socialforge★ 43same name
- derwells/learn-skill★ 2same name
- derwells/skills★ 2same 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- context-clearingSkill
- local-workerSkill
- persona-makerSkill
- retroSkill
- script-makerSkill
- siftSkill
- skill-makerSkill
- spendSkill
- stage1-classifier-hardeningSkill
- telemetry-batterySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use at intake or when the task shape materially changes.
- Distinctive: line 31
Stop after the recommendation.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Model check
Use at intake or when the task shape materially changes. The output is a routing decision, not permission to begin the underlying work.
Score 0–2 on:
- reasoning depth;
- ambiguity;
- novelty;
- blast radius if wrong;
- benefit from extended thinking.
Choose model capability from ambiguity + novelty + blast radius. Choose effort from reasoning depth + extended-thinking benefit + whether the work requires sustained multi-file iteration. Favor the cheaper option on a genuine tie, but never trade away a required correctness, privacy, security, migration, or production-safety capability.
Prefer one capable runner for a coherent vertical slice. Use worker subagents only for genuinely independent subtasks with self-contained briefs; cold-start context duplicated across workers is token waste. A separate agent is valuable for a capability the primary runner lacks or for the one independent review required by repository policy, not as a simulated department.
Before recommending any model, check whether a deterministic script already covers the work — script-maker's mechanism hierarchy controls that choice, and neither a local nor a hosted LLM is a substitute for it. Only for work that still requires model judgment: when a task is a good candidate per .claude/skills/local-worker/SKILL.md's bounded-delegation criteria, recommend local execution over hosted Claude only when the combined cost of dispatch + verification + correction is materially lower than doing the work directly with the selected Claude model — not merely because local inference is cheap. Weigh reasoning depth, ambiguity, novelty, blast radius if wrong, local-model capability, amount of context that would need duplicating, cost of verifying the result, and expected cost of repairing a bad local result.
Return only:
- recommended model and effort;
- one-line reason;
- whether the slice should stay with one runner, use independent workers, use a separate reviewer, or delegate to local worker;
- any quota or tool-access constraint.
Stop after the recommendation. The founder selects the model when dispatching a fresh session.
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.

