agentleFS
PaulRBergPaulRBerg/dot-agents/skills/tool-finder/SKILL.md

tool-finder

Skill6 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

This skill is coordination-exempt: skip the ai-coord gate for its declared work. Recommend the current option that best fits the user's actual constraints, backed by fresh primary evidence. 1. Infer the ecosystem, existing stack, must-haves, switching cost, and decision criteria from the request and repository. Ask only when an unknown would materially change the recommendation. 2. Check whether the standard library, platform, or an already-installed tool is sufficient before adding a dependency. 3. Search current authoritative sources. Read references/tool-finder.md only…

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 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.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Check whether the standard library, platform, or an already-installed tool is sufficient before adding a dependency.

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    Search current authoritative sources.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer registries, official docs, repositories, changelogs, and security advisories over secondary comparisons.

    line 34

≈ “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.

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

Tool Finder

This skill is coordination-exempt: skip the ai-coord gate for its declared work.

Recommend the current option that best fits the user's actual constraints, backed by fresh primary evidence.

Workflow

  1. Infer the ecosystem, existing stack, must-haves, switching cost, and decision criteria from the request and repository. Ask only when an unknown would materially change the recommendation.
  2. Check whether the standard library, platform, or an already-installed tool is sufficient before adding a dependency.
  3. Search current authoritative sources. Read references/tool-finder.md only for the relevant ecosystem's source routing, fallback criteria, install conventions, and red flags. Issue independent lookups for different candidates (registry, repository, advisories, changelog) together in one turn.
  4. Compare the viable options against the user's criteria. Use adoption, maintenance, security, documentation, performance, operational cost, and ecosystem fit only where they affect this decision. Do not force fixed weights or a fixed number of candidates.
  5. Recommend one option when the evidence supports it. State the decisive tradeoff, material red flags, and the closest alternative. Say when the evidence is too close or no external tool is justified.

Defaults

  • With no repository evidence, default to JavaScript/TypeScript and Node.js tooling.
  • For JavaScript installs, prefer the repository's package manager and otherwise ni. For macOS CLIs, prefer an official or well-maintained Homebrew formula.
  • Prefer registries, official docs, repositories, changelogs, and security advisories over secondary comparisons. For agent skills, search registries and GitHub because no single index is complete.

Completion

The answer is complete when the recommendation is traceable to current sources, the deciding criteria are explicit, installation guidance matches the user's environment, and uncertainties or disqualifying risks are visible. Use a table only when repeated fields make the comparison easier to scan.

Lead with ### 🏆 Pick: <tool> and the decisive reason. Follow with ### 📦 Install and the exact command, a compact criteria/evidence table only when fields repeat, ### 🥈 Closest alternative only for a credible material runner-up, and ### ⚠️ Caveats only when material. Use symbols in comparison cells only with text. Never manufacture scores. Keep URL targets exact and use descriptive Markdown links for human output. Keep install commands, versions, security advisories, and installer-risk wording exact and undecorated.

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.