agentleFS
XRPLFXRPLF/XRPL-Standards/.agents/skills/xls-template-conformity/SKILL.md

xls-template-conformity

Skill297 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub

Check that an XLS specification conforms to the XRPL-Standards templates. Use when asked to check an XLS against the template, validate a spec's structure or preamble, review a draft's format before opening a PR, or review changes to an XLS-*/README.md file.

  • Installs packages

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Check one or more XLS-NNNN-slug/README.md documents against templates/XLS_TEMPLATE.md and, for Amendment specs, …

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the paths given. If none were given, use the changed specs on this branch:

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    If the validator cannot run (no Python, no network — it does HEAD requests to xrpl.org), say so explicitly and continue with the manual …

    line 31
  4. Very specific:

    Read templates/XLS_TEMPLATE.md.

    line 35
  5. Very specific:

    Read references/beyond-the-template.md and work through it.

    line 41
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not report nits. Suppress spelling, grammar, phrasing, verbosity, naming consistency, field qualification, and optional clarity …

    line 56
  7. Distinctive:

    Never report anything CI already owns: whitespace, line endings, EOF newlines, markdown table alignment (prettier owns it), or the presence …

    line 58

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

XLS template conformity

Check one or more XLS-NNNN-slug/README.md documents against templates/XLS_TEMPLATE.md and, for Amendment specs, templates/AMENDMENT_TEMPLATE.md.

The templates are the source of truth. Read them at run time and compare — never work from a remembered copy of their contents.

1. Resolve targets

Use the paths given. If none were given, use the changed specs on this branch:

git diff --name-only master...HEAD -- 'XLS-*/README.md'

2. Run the validator first

The repo already machine-checks preamble fields, required sections, Amendment subsection presence, and leftover template placeholders. Run it; do not reimplement it.

pip install -r scripts/requirements.txt
python scripts/validate_xls_template.py XLS-NNNN-slug/README.md   # or --all

Report every error it prints verbatim, as blocking. Do not restate those findings in your own words or add a second comment about the same line.

If the validator cannot run (no Python, no network — it does HEAD requests to xrpl.org), say so explicitly and continue with the manual passes.

3. Compare against the templates

Read templates/XLS_TEMPLATE.md. If the preamble says category: Amendment, also read templates/AMENDMENT_TEMPLATE.md.

Check that the spec's section structure, ordering, numbering, and per-section content match what the template asks for. The validator only checks that required sections exist; you are checking that each one actually does its job, and that optional sections were omitted deliberately rather than forgotten.

4. Apply the checks the template and validator cannot express

Read references/beyond-the-template.md and work through it. It also lists the exemptions the validator already applies, so you do not re-flag them.

5. Report

Finish every validator, template, and beyond-the-template pass before reporting. Build the complete finding set, verify it, and remove duplicates. Do not report findings incrementally or stop after the first defect.

For an interactive conformity check, use one table grouped by severity, most severe first:

SeverityLocationFindingSuggested fix
blockingXLS-NNNN-slug/README.md:120......
  • blocking — validator errors, missing required content, an unsafe or unimplementable statement.
  • should-fix — a concrete defect that can cause divergent implementation or incorrect client behavior.

Do not report nits. Suppress spelling, grammar, phrasing, verbosity, naming consistency, field qualification, and optional clarity suggestions unless they meet one of the two severity thresholds above.

Never report anything CI already owns: whitespace, line endings, EOF newlines, markdown table alignment (prettier owns it), or the presence of fields and sections the validator checks.

6. Offer to fix

Offer to apply the mechanical fixes (renumbering, missing table columns, JSON/table mismatches). Leave design questions to the author — state the question, do not answer it for them.

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.