agentleFS
Sign inStart free
PthahnixPthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/skills/identify-obstacles/SKILL.md

identify-obstacles

Skill504 starsChanged 48 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Enumerate obstacles that block a target goal/direction, with type, evidence, and blocking relation.

2 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

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    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
  1. Very specific:

    If obstacles have comparable evidence, severity, and tractability fields, consider score-object as the next tactic.

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    Every listed obstacle has a blocking relation and evidence or an explicit uncertainty label.

    line 29

≈ “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

identify-obstacles

Purpose

Enumerate obstacles blocking a target goal or direction, with evidence and blocking relations.

Input contract

required: [target_goal, current_state, domain_context]
optional: [timeline, resource_inventory, prior_failures]
constraints: [each obstacle has type, evidence, and blocking relation]

Procedure

  1. Compare target requirements with current capabilities and constraints.
  2. Enumerate technical, evidential, resource, temporal, and dependency obstacles.
  3. Link each obstacle to blocked outcomes and supporting evidence.
  4. Return severity, uncertainty, and candidate removal questions.

If obstacles have comparable evidence, severity, and tractability fields, consider score-object as the next tactic.

Output contract

produces: [obstacle_register, blocking_relations, evidence_links, removal_questions]
delta_fields: [findings, uncertainties, open_questions]

Quality gates

  • Every listed obstacle has a blocking relation and evidence or an explicit uncertainty label.
  • Duplicate obstacles are merged only when mechanism and remedy coincide.
  • Obstacles are separated from symptoms and desired outcomes.

Parameterization

Caller supplies goal schema, obstacle taxonomy, evidence fields, severity scale, and merge policy.

Failure and counterexamples

Reject generic risks, unsupported blockers, or lists with no relation to the target goal.

Provenance map

  • concept: north-star-crystallization/identify-obstacles
  • concept: experiment-execution/obstacle-identification

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.

Check your setup, free