agentleFS
MegapromptingMegaprompting/torque-loop/skills/ignite/SKILL.md

ignite

Skill10 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run the full consequence loop on any messy task, project state, prompt pile, codebase goal, or vague direction. Use this when you do not know which Ratchet command to use. Locks a target, ranks blockers, cuts assumptions, builds the smallest artifact, attacks it, patches failures, and serializes state — ending with the single next move.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 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.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run this first (via Bash) so you build on the existing session, not a blank one:

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    If ratchet is not on PATH, call the plugin-local CLI as node "<plugin root>/bin/ratchet".

    line 25
  3. Distinctive:

    Before running the pipeline, score how much of it this task earns.

    line 32
  4. Very specific:

    Every sequence ends on compile, and every sequence that builds runs verify after its last build/patch.

    line 55
  5. Very specific:

    When the read reports Pre-build map: required, run /ratchet:map before any build step and hand over the four-quadrant map first.

    line 60
  6. Very specific:

    ADD / CHANGE — and retest.

    line 99

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/ratchet:ignite — the master loop

Ambiguity in. Artifact out. Failure tested. State advanced.

This is the command you run when you don't know which command to run. It drives one full turn of the ratchet: from vague input to a tested artifact and a serialized next move. Do not stop at analysis. The turn is not complete until an artifact exists and state is written.

Step 0 — Load state

Run this first (via Bash) so you build on the existing session, not a blank one:

ratchet init
ratchet status
ratchet snapshot repo

If ratchet is not on PATH, call the plugin-local CLI as node "<plugin root>/bin/ratchet". In Claude Code, <plugin root> is $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT; in Codex local development, use this repo root or the installed plugin path shown by codex plugin list --json.

Step 1 — Aperture Read (meter the loop)

Before running the pipeline, score how much of it this task earns. Rate five uncertainty dimensions 0–2 and let the CLI set the depth:

ratchet score aperture '{"ambiguity":_,"terrain":_,"taste":_,"blastRadius":_,"reversibility":_}'
  • ambiguity — goals / acceptance criteria / constraints unclear?
  • terrain — codebase / domain / tooling unfamiliar?
  • taste — would the user recognize the right answer only once shown?
  • blastRadius — could it hit data, security, production, many files/users?
  • reversibility — hard to undo or validate?

The result names an aperture and the exact ratchet sequence to run:

LevelScoreRun
A0 Snap0–2build → verify → compile — do it, prove it, record it.
A1 Narrow3–4lock → build → verify → compile.
A2 Working5–6lock → cut → build → attack → patch → verify → compile — the pipeline below.
A3 Wide7–8lock → map → auction → cut → decide → build → attack → patch → verify → compile — map the fog before you build.
A4 Max9–10lock → map → cut → decide → compile, then STOP — produce options, do not build until constraints are locked.

Every sequence ends on compile, and every sequence that builds runs verify after its last build/patch. Work that is never serialized cannot be resumed; an edit nothing ran after it is an unproven ship. compile is a CHECKPOINT — closing the artifact is a separate, earned move (ratchet artifact close <id>).

When the read reports Pre-build map: required, run /ratchet:map before any build step and hand over the four-quadrant map first. The dial raises it at A3–A4, and also on a single dominant dimension the score under-weights — "I'll know it when I see it" taste, or unfamiliar terrain with any goal ambiguity — so a high-taste task can earn a map even at a low overall score. At A4, stop after the map until constraints are locked.

Widen one level after failed verification, a surprising repo constraint, or conflicting requirements; narrow one after the user locks a decision or the work goes mechanical.

Do not inflate ceremony. Running the full loop on an A0 task is the same failure as skipping it on an A4 task. Spend proof where uncertainty earns it.

The pipeline (the A2 default — run the aperture's metered sequence, not always all of it)

  1. Lock the target. Apply the discipline of /ratchet:lock. Produce: literal object, operation, output shape, real outcome, proof-of-done, smallest artifact, highest-information missing variable, and the assumption you'll adopt if it's missing. Persist: ratchet state set objective "<one line>".
  2. Run the friction auction. Apply /ratchet:auction. List the real blockers, score each, and pick the one bottleneck with the highest leverage. Feed candidates to ratchet score friction '[...]' and adopt its winner. Persist: ratchet state set bottleneck "<winner>".
  3. Cut assumptions. Apply /ratchet:cut. Name the assumptions that would make this plan look stupid in hindsight, and the cheapest test to falsify each. Persist the riskiest via ratchet state append assumptions '{"text":"...","killTest":"...","status":"untested"}'.
  4. Build the smallest usable artifact. Apply /ratchet:build. Produce a real v0 — spec, prompt, checklist, patch, test plan, or decision record — with explicit holes and a 5-point working test. Persist: ratchet artifact add '{"title":"...","kind":"...","status":"v0","holes":["..."]}'. Delegate to the ratchet-builder subagent if the artifact is large.
  5. Attack the artifact. Apply /ratchet:attack. Run the five-voice hostile board. Record each real defect: ratchet defect add '{"severity":"...","summary":"..."}'. Delegate to the ratchet-auditor subagent for anything that looks finished.
  6. Patch what failed. Apply /ratchet:patch. Fix only the defects found — REMOVE / ADD / CHANGE — and retest. Resolve the ORIGINAL defect with its proof: ratchet defect resolve <id> --evidence "<what proves it fixed>".
  7. Verify, bound to the artifact. Apply /ratchet:verify. Run the harness against the artifact it belongs to — ratchet-evolve verify <target> --artifact <id> — and record the result with its verifiedHash. On green, close it: ratchet artifact close <id>.
  8. Compile state. Apply /ratchet:compile. Write decisions, artifacts, defects, open loops, and the single next action + next command. Run ratchet state set nextAction "..." and ratchet state set nextCommand "/ratchet:...", then ratchet compile done. That is a CHECKPOINT, not a closure — read the transition it prints.

Output contract

Return exactly these blocks, in order:

APERTURE: <A0–A4 level, score/10> — ran: <the metered sequence>
LOCKED TARGET: <one line>
CHOSEN BOTTLENECK: <one line + why it beats the runner-up>
KILL-ASSUMPTION: <the one that most needs a test> — test: <cheapest falsification>
ARTIFACT: <title (kind, v0)> — then the artifact itself
ATTACK: <n critical / n high> — top failure mode
PATCH: <the minimal delta applied> — retest result
REMAINING RISK: <what is still open>
NEXT: <single action> → <next /ratchet command>
CONFIDENCE: <run `ratchet score confidence` and report score/band>

Then confirm state was written: ratchet status.

The ratchet only turns one way. End every ignite with more committed than you started.

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.