gold-standard
Skill15 starsChanged 6 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
World-class completeness audit — score a project's rules/standards/features against best-in-class exemplars, name the gaps, fill missing rules, adopt as binding, then offer to conform existing code. Triggers on keywords: "/gold-standard", "gold-standard", "audit rules", "are we world-class", "fill gaps", "complete our rules", "conform old code".
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- HetCreep/CoalMineword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- HetCreep/CoalMine★ 15100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- drift-canarySkill
- resilience-auditSkill
- rot-canarySkill
- scale-canarySkill
- source-groundingSkill
- supply-chain-auditSkill
- telemetry-canarySkill
- testability-canarySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
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
- Very specific: line 15
Manual
/gold-standard= interactive setup: read references/wizard.md (dual-audience — layman 1-question default · programmer …
≈ “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
Gold Standard
<!-- SHARED:LANGUAGE_HEADER -->Answer: "For a project that does THIS — are rules/standards/features 100% vs world-class? If not, what's missing?"
Four acts: AUDIT → FILL → ADOPT → CONFORM. Stop at any.
Manual /gold-standard = interactive setup: read references/wizard.md (dual-audience — layman 1-question default · programmer order→bill→pay). The auto/keyword path (the Triggers table) skips it.
Triggers
| Keyword | Act |
| "audit rules" / "gold-standard" / "are we world-class" | AUDIT |
| "fill gaps" / "complete our rules" | FILL |
| "work by these rules" / "follow from now on" | ADOPT |
| "conform old code" / "retrofit" | CONFORM |
"fill and adopt" / ACTION=fill-adopt | AUDIT → FILL → summary → ADOPT → offer CONFORM |
Consent gates (G1–G6, declared)
| # | what it gates | when it fires | Agent lane | Hook lane |
| G1 | model tier | before work starts | ask_question, 3 tiers, wait for pick | suppressed — auto-Light, no tier question |
| G2 | ADOPT | before treating the ruleset as binding | ask_question | ask_question |
| G3 | CONFORM fix | before each fix | ask_question | ask_question |
| G4 | RE-VALIDATE change | any re-stamp / rewrite / delete / consistency-fix | ask_question | ask_question |
| G5 | entanglement hand-off | after the report, cross-domain finding | ask_question, once | ask_question, once |
| G6 | self error-report | skill misbehaves | offer, never auto-submit | offer, never auto-submit |
Hook cells assume an interactive session; non-interactive → D6, report-only: no gate fires. Manual /gold-standard wizard (references/wizard.md) carries its own setup gates — on-demand, not counted above.
Acts
ADOPT and every CONFORM fix: gated (G2/G3), never assumed (P2).
- AUDIT — pick 3–5 named exemplars fresh at run time (the bar moves with the era — never reuse a remembered bar (P3)), derive the 100% checklist per dimension, score (✅/🟡/❌/N-A), give overall %. Previously filled/adopted rules are audit subjects too: a rule past its
revalidatedue date or contradicted by today's exemplars is a gap. - FILL — write missing MUST-HAVE rules into the project's rules home (
.claude/rules/→AGENTS.md→STANDARDS.md). Match project style + voice. Cite the exemplar. Invoke source-grounding for version-sensitive claims. Extend existing; never duplicate (P4). Check the retired-rules record first — never resurrect a rule retired with a reason unless the user overrides (P5). No overkill rules — only essential, practical, saturated ones (P6). Stamp each rule:<!-- coalmine: verified <YYYY-MM-DD> · exemplar <name> · revalidate <30|90>d -->— 30d fast-moving surfaces, 90d general; a CVE/advisory rule's event overrides its calendar stamp. Mechanics + why:references/method.md. - ADOPT — treat the completed ruleset as binding for the rest of the session. Code changes still need user approval — adoption governs how to work, not license to auto-edit (P7).
- CONFORM — scan existing code against adopted rules; report violations (
path:line· rule · evidence). Fix on approval: checkpoint → record a build+test BASELINE → one fix → build+tests → revert only if a NEW failure appeared versus the baseline. Style Drift: conform minority patterns to the dominant style (highest average usage); never start a standalone style refactor (P8). - RE-VALIDATE (runs inside every repeat AUDIT, or when offered on a past-due stamp) — verdict each CoalMine-stamped rule, all changes choice-gated (G4/P9):
- still valid → re-stamp the date of what you re-read, touch nothing else (no churn; a file-level stamp over sections you did not re-read keeps its date,
references/method.mdStamp date semantics); - stale but needed → rewrite against today's exemplar;
- obsolete (subject removed, platform died, or substance merged into another rule) → delete the rule + record a one-line tombstone in the project's memory/decision log (
retired <rule> <date>: <reason>) — dead rules burn context every session; the tombstone blocks the next FILL from resurrecting them. - CONSISTENCY (the agent trusts memory/rules it never verifies — so verify them): scan the memory/decision log and any in-repo rule register for (a) a prescribed fix/"decision" that contradicts a binding rule or another decision (e.g. prescribing randomness where a determinism rule forbids it) — a poisoned/stale entry; (b) references to a file, flag, or command that no longer exists. Flag each with the conflicting source quoted; correct only through the choice-gate (P9). This is the semantic half; the mechanical half (
node scripts/consistency.mjs: cross-document counts, byte-identical doctrine mirrors, well-formed stamps) runs without an agent.
- still valid → re-stamp the date of what you re-read, touch nothing else (no churn; a file-level stamp over sections you did not re-read keeps its date,
Exemplar-picking rules, scorecard mechanics, stamp/tombstone formats: read references/method.md before the first AUDIT.
Method
- Bar — name 3–5 world-class exemplars + why them (cite real programs, not "best practices" (P11)).
- Checklist — MUST-HAVE (table-stakes) vs EXCELLENCE (top-tier polish). Each tied to an exemplar.
- Score — every criterion. 🟡 = half credit. N-A must be justified; unjustified N-A = ❌ (D2).
- Gaps — prioritized: MUST-HAVEs first. Each: criterion · exemplar · move (the one rule or change that closes the gap) · effort · impact.
Dimensions (pick relevant)
Correctness · Security · Performance · UX/DX · Docs/onboarding · Testing/CI · Distribution/integrity · Observability · Governance/licensing · Maintainability · Compatibility · Error handling
Discipline
- State dimensions not assessed + why.
- Score/verify per P10–P12 + D1 (Prohibitions/Degrade paths below) — not restated here.
Prohibitions (P1–P16, declared)
| # | never … |
| P1 | default to English just because this file is English |
| P2 | assume ADOPT/CONFORM approval — always ask_question (G2/G3) |
| P3 | reuse a remembered exemplar bar — pick fresh each AUDIT |
| P4 | duplicate an existing rule during FILL |
| P5 | resurrect a retired rule without the user's override |
| P6 | write an overkill rule — essential/practical/saturated only |
| P7 | auto-edit code under ADOPT's authority — code changes still need approval |
| P8 | start a standalone style refactor during CONFORM |
| P9 | make a RE-VALIDATE change (re-stamp / rewrite / delete / consistency-fix) outside the choice-gate (G4) |
| P10 | inflate a score — 85% says 85% |
| P11 | cite an unsourced "best practice" — every criterion names a real exemplar |
| P12 | score from memory or a single source |
| P13 | fix without a chosen option (Hook lane) |
| P14 | auto-submit the self error-report |
| P15 | include unapproved code or paths in the self error-report |
| P16 | treat a denied FILL/write as if it succeeded — ADOPT MUST NOT bind against rules that were never written |
Dedup: P5 restated at the RE-VALIDATE tombstone · P9 restated at the CONSISTENCY sub-bullet · P11 restated at Method §1 · P16 restated at the CLASSIFY-BLOCK write row — one row each, further mentions.
Degrade paths (D1–D8, declared)
| # | branch | condition | lane |
| D1 | mark N-A with justification, never guess | sandbox/network blocks an external lookup | universal |
| D2 | unjustified N-A scores as ❌, not skipped | N-A given with no justification | universal |
| D3 | degrade to model tier + reasoning depth, never fake parallelism | no capability lever for the target tier on this host | universal |
| D4 | fixed at Light, no tier question, no sub-agents | Hook Context (auto-triggered) | Hook only |
| D5 | report-only, no fix offered | Hook Context, interactive or non-interactive — this skill defines no Fix mode section, so the footer's deferral resolves to report-only either way | Hook only |
| D6 | fall back to a numbered text menu | host has no question tool | universal |
| D7 | report the rule/fix as NOT written, never say "filled"/"adopted" (P16) | write (Edit/Write) denied during FILL/ADOPT/CONFORM/RE-VALIDATE | universal |
| D8 | refuse that file, name it — never a clean bill | read (Read/Grep/Glob) denied during AUDIT/CONSISTENCY scanning | universal |
D3 restated at four sites — the general clause, the Standard row's "(else single-agent)", the Heavy row's "if supported", and the Heavy-specific "escalate by model + reasoning only" — one row, four mentions. D4–D6 come from the shared Escalation footer below (Agent lane has no equivalent for D4/D5 — tier is asked, see G1, never degraded; D6 applies in either lane, wherever ask_question would fire). The Freshness cap (scope already audited this session → cap at Light) is a tier-selection modifier on G1, not a degrade branch — no capability lever is missing and there is no unhappy path, so it stays out of D. D7/D8 are this skill's CLASSIFY-BLOCK branches (skill-authoring.md §5b) — numbered here, not restated in the table below.
Grants & denials (CLASSIFY-BLOCK)
SPAWN/TIER/QUESTION-TOOL/NETWORK already discharged above — D3/D4/D6, D1. This table adds READ + WRITE; their denial branches are numbered into the Degrade paths ledger (D8, D7) rather than restated here.
| class | step it powers | grant | on denial |
| read | AUDIT (scan exemplars/rule trees) · CONSISTENCY (scan memory/decision log) | Read·Grep·Glob | D8 |
| write | FILL · ADOPT · CONFORM · RE-VALIDATE | Edit·Write (·Bash — CONFORM's checkpoint→build/tests→revert interlock) | D7, P16 |
<!-- SHARED:CLASSIFY_BLOCK -->Output — 5 locations, declared
(the AUDIT report only — FILL writes rules, RE-VALIDATE writes a tombstone, self error-report files an issue: none of those are part of this list)
- Bar — category + named exemplars
- Scorecard —
| dimension | criterion | tier (must/excellence) | exemplar | status | evidence | - Per-dimension % + overall % (list N-A exclusions)
- Gaps — criterion · exemplar · move · effort · impact
- Verdict — 1 line + top 3 moves
<!-- SHARED:ORCHESTRATION --><!-- SHARED:ESCALATION_FOOTER -->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.

