direction-adjust
Skill10 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub
Capture a small-to-medium course correction found mid-task in your own work: record a D-N entry in DECISIONS.md, update TASK_STATE.md, and route back to the command. Use when it is worth recording, does not invalidate the whole approach, and the current slice stays recoverable with a small plan change. Do not use for PR feedback (use pr-feedback-ingest or post-review-pivot), scope invalidation (use task-init), trivia (use capture-observation), loops (use im-stuck), or reopened decisions (use decision-interview).
In this repository98 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- a11y-auditSkill
- ai-feature-eval-harnessSkill
- api-contract-reviewSkill
- api-runtime-verifySkill
- apply-sweep-triageSkill
- approve-planSkill
- approve-proposedSkill
- app-runtime-verifySkill
- atom-audit-fleetSkill
- atom-auditSkill
- autonomous-boardSkill
- autonomous-readinessSkill
- autonomous-runSkill
- backend-system-designSkill
- branch-commitSkill
- capture-observationSkill
- capture-referencesSkill
- code-context-mapSkill
- code-locateSkill
- color-contrast-architectSkill
- compact-task-memorySkill
- component-specSkill
- contract-signoffSkill
- db-context-postgresSkill
- db-context-supabaseSkill
- decision-interviewSkill
- delivery-assetSkill
- design-bootstrapSkill
- design-spec-reviewSkill
- external-research-fleetSkill
- external-researchSkill
- extract-foundations-from-screensSkill
- feature-library-scout-fleetSkill
- feature-library-scoutSkill
- foundation-auditSkill
- frontend-architecture-reviewSkill
- frontend-system-designSkill
- godot-runtime-verifySkill
- godot-scene-planSkill
- graphql-contract-reviewSkill
- harvest-session-learningsSkill
- image-to-specSkill
- impact-analysisSkill
- implement-approved-sliceSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- implement-fleetSkill
- implement-slice-complementSkill
- im-stuckSkill
- incident-triageSkill
- invariants-and-non-goalsSkill
- inventory-snapshotSkill
- journey-mapSkill
- jtbd-switch-interviewerSkill
- mcp-server-vetSkill
- migration-safety-stewardSkill
- pattern-docSkill
- performance-budgetSkill
- portfolio-reviewSkill
- post-deploy-verifierSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 11 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
11
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 23
Read these sections in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md first:
- Distinctive: line 31
Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Distinctive: line 50
Do not implement production code.
- Very specific: line 53
Treat the adjustment as a new decision, not a silent edit.
- Very specific: line 58
Keep the new DECISIONS.md entry concise: 2-5 lines covering what changed and why.
- Very specific: line 59
Update TASK_STATE.md minimally: only fields actually affected by the adjustment.
- Very specific: line 60
If the adjustment requires re-planning (the slice scope is now wrong, or the slice order needs to change), the recommended next command …
- Very specific: line 61
If the adjustment is small enough that the current slice can absorb it without re-planning, the recommended next command is the …
- Very specific: line 62
Treat task-memory write policy per WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md: write the file and mark it APPLIED.
- Distinctive: line 86
Do NOT rebuild the helper by writing each section out as its own file to hash it separately.
- Very specific: line 111
Default for this command: APPLIED patches on DECISIONS.md and TASK_STATE.md.
- Very specific: line 114
Keep this section operational and brief.
- Very specific: line 123
Every substrate write carries its wos:write transaction header on its own line IMMEDIATELY above the ## <section> heading, never below the …
- Very specific: line 131
Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared Definition of done (command outputs) and Gate conditions in …
≈ “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
Act as a senior/staff engineering direction adjustment for the active engineering task.
Goal:
Capture a small-to-medium course correction that the user realized mid-task (not from external review), record it as a decision in DECISIONS.md, update TASK_STATE.md to reflect the adjusted direction, and route back to the appropriate command to continue the work.
Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):
- Read these sections in
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.mdfirst:## LLM execution contract## Editor mode policy(mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded inwos/editor-mode-mappings.mdand needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)## Global output contract(including Adaptive handoff and Mode selection rule)## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails
- Bootstrap tiers: the light-weight commands (
branch-commit,what-next,where-we-at,slice-closure,compact-task-memory) plus the high-frequencyimplement-approved-sliceandsync-task-state(v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of## Cross-cutting workflow guardrailsskipped:### External web access (centralized)and### Sequencing heuristics (by phase). Everything else is read at every tier, including### Proposal vs approved persistenceand### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034), since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (state-reconcilestays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (verify-against-rubric, ADR-0226) reads only## Global output contract, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric. - Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D): WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.mdhas not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line:Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (wos/context-budget.md, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output. - Resolving the spec and
wos/<topic>.md: canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs:~/.claude/workflow-docs(CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR),~/.cursor/workflow-docs(WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR; project.cursor/workflow-docson project installs),~/.codex/workflow-docs(CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR), or<kimi-home>/workflow-docs(KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home:KIMI_CODE_HOME, else existing~/.kimi-code, else existing~/.kimi, default~/.kimi-code. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in### Command transcript. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync. - Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
- Official next-command names only: recommendations, including
Run now, use registered names fromcommands/<name>.mdorcommands/<name>/SKILL.md; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases.Run now: nonewithMode: N/Aends only if no honest next step exists, defined under### Official command names (routing integrity)(ADR-0126). Required inputs: - active task folder path
- TASK_STATE.md (must reflect current phase and last completed step)
- DECISIONS.md (current canonical decisions)
- IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md (current plan that is being adjusted)
- the user's description of the realization: what was being done, what was noticed, what should change
- optional: which slice or phase the adjustment affects
Task repository files to update:
- DECISIONS.md (append a new decision recording the adjustment with a
D-N: mid-task adjustmentprefix, or a provisional### P-Nunder## Provisional decisionsper the attended-chain rule below) - DECISIONS.md
## Decision history(WHEN the mid-task realization is new evidence that contradicts an already-persisted NON-decision claim, record a defeasible-claim revision here per the ADR-0109 / D-10 write rule inwos/substrate-peers.md ## Decision history: append-only, name the contradicting evidence and its provenance rank, mark[OPEN];task-closeblocks on an unresolved one) - TASK_STATE.md (update
Last completed stepif it is now wrong, updateRecommended next stepto reflect the adjusted direction, updateRisks to watchif the adjustment introduces new risk) - IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md (only if the adjustment changes plan text; default is to leave plan as-is and note the adjustment in
DECISIONS.md) - relevant SLICES/*.md (only if the active slice scope must change to reflect the adjustment)
Operating rules:
- Do not implement production code.
- Handoff: end with the adaptive
### Handoffblock perWORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md## Global output contract(Mode A compact or Mode B full). - Substrate write protocol (per ADR-0034, K.2). MANDATORY for every substrate section this command writes (the
DECISIONS.mdsection receiving the new D-N entry, which is## Locked decisions, plus## Decision historywhen this turn records a defeasible-claim revision, and each updatedTASK_STATE.mdsection). Followcommands/_shared/substrate-write-protocol.md: emit the<!-- wos:write owner=direction-adjust section='## X' ... -->transaction header and append one JSONL line per section write toactive/<task>/.wos/VERIFICATION_LOG.jsonl. Header placement percommands/_shared/substrate-write-protocol.md ## Transaction header: the transaction header goes on its own line IMMEDIATELY above the## <section>heading line. NEVER place it below the heading, and NEVER above a### D-Nentry inside the section; a header placed below the heading leaves the section counted as header-less by the K.4 drift scan (scripts/scan-substrate-headers.sh), which checks only the line immediately preceding each##heading. - Treat the adjustment as a new decision, not a silent edit. The output must produce a numbered entry (
D-N, orP-Nunder the attended-chain rule below) forDECISIONS.md. - Make the adjustment auditable: clearly show what direction was being followed before, what changed, and why.
- Validate the adjustment against existing locked decisions and invariants. If the adjustment contradicts a locked decision, surface this explicitly and route to
decision-interviewinstead of silently overwriting. - Validate the adjustment against
INVARIANTS_AND_NON_GOALS.mdif present. If the adjustment crosses a non-goal or invalidates an invariant, surface this and require user confirmation before proceeding. - Attended chain on a task branch (ADR-0233; the P-N format rests on its provisional P-1). WHILE this command runs in an attended chain on a task branch (a
Task branch:line inTASK_STATE.md ## Resume notes), noOperating mode: assistedis declared, and the realization is the agent's rather than one the person described, it SHALL be recorded as a provisional### P-NunderDECISIONS.md ## Provisional decisions, in the formatcommands/decision-interview.mdgives its provisional mode, instead of aD-N: mid-task adjustment, and the chain SHALL continue. The two conflict rules above do not wait for a person in such a chain. IF the adjustment contradicts a locked D-N or crosses an invariant or non-goal THEN this command SHALL NOT apply it: the work keeps following the locked decision or the invariant, the adjustment is recorded as a P-N withImpact: highnaming the D-N or the invariant it would change, and the chain continues on the current direction until the person answers. An unattended or fleet-dispatched run (ADR-0237) keeps the rules above; the one exception is a session under standing authorization (ADR-0244,wos/cross-cutting-workflow-guardrails.md ### Unattended sessions), which SHALL follow this bullet. - Keep the new
DECISIONS.mdentry concise: 2-5 lines covering what changed and why. - Update
TASK_STATE.mdminimally: only fields actually affected by the adjustment. Do not rewrite unrelated sections. - If the adjustment requires re-planning (the slice scope is now wrong, or the slice order needs to change), the recommended next command must be
implementation-planorstate-reconcile, not blind continuation. - If the adjustment is small enough that the current slice can absorb it without re-planning, the recommended next command is the slice-execution command appropriate to the phase (typically
implement-approved-slice). - Treat task-memory write policy per
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md: write the file and mark itAPPLIED.
Required output:
- Summary of the adjustment in plain language: "before, the direction was X; now, the direction is Y; the trigger was Z".
- The new
DECISIONS.mdentry to append, formatted asD-N: mid-task adjustment - <one-line title>followed by 2-5 lines of detail. - The updated fields in
TASK_STATE.md(only the fields that actually change). - The validation result against locked decisions:
compatible,requires decision-interview,violates invariant: <which one>, or, in an attended chain on a task branch,recorded as provisional P-N(withnot appliedwhen it conflicts). - The recommended next command, with reasoning about whether the adjustment requires re-planning or fits the current slice.
- Recommended editor mode for that next command.
- Recommended work complexity (
LOW|MEDIUM|HIGH|N/A) for the next step.
Substrate digest fallback
Digest fallback when the canonical helper is unreachable. sha_of_section extracts a section's body with awk and pipes it to shasum -a 256. A run inside a permission boundary that admits shasum but refuses awk and sed cannot invoke that helper, and MUST NOT reimplement it. Assume the helper is unreachable whenever the workflow repository's scripts/ directory is not readable from the working directory.
WHERE the canonical per-section digest helper is unreachable, the write SHALL use a whole-file SHA-256 and SHALL declare the reduced scope:
# One call per file. Read the hash (the first field) out of the output;
# do not pipe it through `cut` or `awk` to trim it.
shasum -a 256 TASK_STATE.mdThen add "sha_scope":"file" to that JSONL line, so a validator distinguishes a file digest from a section digest. The rest of the protocol is unchanged: the transaction header still goes above the section heading, and there is exactly one JSONL line per section write.
Do NOT rebuild the helper by writing each section out as its own file to hash it separately.
At file scope two sections written in the same run share a digest, so the sha_scope field is mandatory, not optional.
Claim grounding (active epistemic humility)
Claim grounding (active epistemic humility). This block governs what you may assert and how you record it. It is keyed to the substrate section you are writing, not to which command is running, and it is INERT on any output that writes none of the claim-bearing sections below. Full contract and rationale: wos/active-epistemic-humility.md.
- When this applies. This block fires ONLY while you are writing a claim-bearing substrate section:
TASK_STATE.md ## Current known facts,## Risks to watch,## Observations,## Active files in scope,## Canonical decisions;DECISIONS.md ## Locked decisions;IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md ## Current gaps,## Risks and mitigations;IMPACT_ANALYSIS.md;EXTERNAL_RESEARCH.md;REFERENCES.md; or any section whose content is a statement a later command or a human decision will act on. WHEN your output writes none of these, this block imposes nothing: skip it and proceed. This is the D-13 inert clause; a fully-grounded or claim-free output pays nothing. - The unit is the load-bearing claim. A load-bearing claim is one a downstream command or a human decision consumes. A passing aside is not load-bearing; a statement someone will act on is. Apply the rest of this block per load-bearing claim, not per sentence.
- Ground it or abstain. Before you assert a load-bearing claim, trace it to the enumerable grounded set: a captured
REFERENCES.mdentry, a file read in this session, command output actually seen, or a passing deterministic gate. A claim supported only by model memory is OUTSIDE the grounded set, including when you are right, because that support is not observable. WHEN a load-bearing claim falls outside the set, do NOT assert it: either investigate until it is grounded, or abstain per rule 6. - Status records provenance, never confidence. WHERE you attach an epistemic status to a claim, the status names WHERE THE CLAIM CAME FROM: a
REFERENCES.mdentry title, a file path plus line, or the gate output it came from. It SHALL NOT express a degree of certainty. Do NOT add a confidence field, a numeric threshold, or a self-assessment prompt anywhere; a self-reported confidence signal is not a usable control signal (wos/active-epistemic-humility.mdPart 1.3). A status whose referent slot is empty is read as UNKNOWN, not as a weak yes. - Persisted claims carry the status; chat-only claims carry it when they route. Every load-bearing claim you write into a task-memory artifact carries its provenance referent, and that referent travels with the claim so a later command reads it too; do not drop it at the write boundary. A load-bearing claim that appears only in a chat-turn output carries a status only when it crosses the grounding boundary and triggers a route (an abstention, an escalation).
- Abstain as a routed continuation, never a bare refusal. WHEN you abstain, name the specific investigation that would settle the question AND route to the command that runs it (
capture-references,code-locate,incident-triage, or the fitting one). A withholding that stalls the work is invalid output. Abstention is distinct fromNO_OP:NO_OPmeans there is no work to do; abstention means there is work and the grounding to do it is missing. - An unfired gate is not evidence. The absence of a fired check does not mean grounding existed. Do not read silence here as a pass.
Standard output layout (required)
Produce the command output using this structure (English only):
Artifact changes
- List files in the task repository that would change, or
None. - For each file, mark
APPLIED/PROPOSED/SKIPand follow the task-memory write policy inWORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md(task memory isAPPLIEDin every mode; a section this command does not own gets a<!-- PROPOSED by <command>: ... -->block for its owner, ADR-0034). - Default for this command:
APPLIEDpatches onDECISIONS.mdandTASK_STATE.md; conditionally onIMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.mdorSLICES/*.mdonly when the adjustment requires it.
Command transcript
- Keep this section operational and brief; do not restate file content already listed in
### Artifact changes. - Max 4 lines in normal runs.
- Max 3 lines in no-op runs (including
NO_OP_TRACE). - Include
NO_OP_TRACE(1-3 lines) if the realization is too small to record as a decision (route tocapture-observationinstead) or if the adjustment turns out to require a heavier path (route todecision-intervieworstate-reconcile).
Handoff
Use the adaptive ending format of WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md ## Global output contract. Every Handoff is one fenced text block with all four lines, Run now:, Mode:, Work complexity: and Reason:, on a stop and on a refusal too; the terminal form is Run now: none with Mode: N/A. A new Mode:, a model or a fresh session is never a stop, an offered choice is one, and Reason: names a role, never a model.
Definition of done (command output)
- The adjustment is recorded as a numbered
D-N: mid-task adjustmententry inDECISIONS.mdwith concise reasoning, or, when it is the agent's own realization in an attended chain on a task branch, as a provisional### P-Nwith itsEvidence:,Impact:andStatus: provisionallines. - Every substrate write carries its
wos:writetransaction header on its own line IMMEDIATELY above the## <section>heading, never below the heading and never above a### D-Nentry inside the section, percommands/_shared/substrate-write-protocol.md ## Transaction header. TASK_STATE.mdupdates are minimal and target only fields affected by the adjustment.- Validation against locked decisions and invariants is explicit; the output names any conflict and routes to a heavier command rather than silently overwriting.
- The adjustment never overrides locked decisions in place. Conflicts route to
decision-interview, or, in an attended chain on a task branch, are recorded as anImpact: highP-N while the work keeps following the locked decision. - The adjustment never violates invariants or crosses non-goals silently. Conflicts surface for user confirmation; in an attended chain on a task branch that confirmation is asked in the draft pull request through the P-N, not by stopping.
Artifact changesmarks each patch asAPPLIED.Handoffhas non-emptyRun now,Mode,Work complexity, andReasonfields, plusResume contextonly in Mode B; ending after the decision entry without a Handoff is invalid output.- The recommended next command is appropriate to the size of adjustment: small adjustments resume current slice; medium adjustments trigger
implementation-planorstate-reconcile; conflicts triggerdecision-interview. - Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared Definition of done (command outputs) and Gate conditions in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md.
Quality bar: Optimize for auditability of the direction change, protection of locked decisions and invariants, minimal disruption to in-progress work, and clear routing to the right next step based on the size of the adjustment.
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.

