agentleFS
YoungmaidainonYoungmaidainon/Agent-Level-Up/caveman-manage/SKILL.md

caveman-manage

Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Inspect Caveman Cloud's eval-gated experiment lifecycle and block unsafe execution. Use when the user asks to start, approve, cancel, promote, or roll back a Caveman experiment, or asks what action an experiment's evidence supports. Read evidence first; do not execute lifecycle mutations until server-authoritative transition and evidence gates ship.

10 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 7

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    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. Common:

    Treat every lifecycle change as a production control action.

    line 13
  2. Common:

    Never approve an experiment whose results are pending, whose required guardrails are absent, or whose evidence reports a breach.

    line 21
  3. Very specific:

    Never convert experiment lift into verified_savings.

    line 23
  4. Common:

    Never supply an organization id.

    line 25
  5. Very specific:

    Never execute a lifecycle mutation, even after user approval.

    line 27
  6. Very specific:

    Use {"action":"list"} when the user has not named an id.

    line 43
  7. Common:

    Stop if login, project, experiment, or results are unavailable.

    line 53
  8. Common:

    Do not treat earlier generic statements such as "manage it" or "do what is best" as mutation approval.

    line 90
  9. Common:

    Do not emit or run an executable lifecycle command.

    line 95
  10. Common:

    If operator says they executed command, read detail and results again.

    line 101

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Manage eval-gated experiments

Treat every lifecycle change as a production control action. Read current state and results, then report one supported recommendation or block. Current agent MCP is intentionally read-only: control-api does not yet enforce a complete lifecycle transition table and evidence gate atomically.

Non-negotiable gates

  1. A request to review, inspect, explain, or recommend authorizes reads only.
  2. Never approve an experiment whose results are pending, whose required guardrails are absent, or whose evidence reports a breach.
  3. Never convert experiment lift into verified_savings. Only active real traffic plus provider-causal, provider-complete ledger evidence can do that.
  4. Never supply an organization id. Project and tenant scope come from the logged-in Caveman identity and server RBAC.
  5. Never execute a lifecycle mutation, even after user approval. Exact <action>:<experiment_id> strings are agent-generatable and are not proof of human intent.
  6. Unknown states and server errors fail closed. Report exact cave_snake_code.

Step 1 — Load project and experiment

Prefer MCP:

caveman_context {}
caveman_experiment_get {"action":"get","experiment_id":"<id>"}
caveman_experiment_get {"action":"results","experiment_id":"<id>"}

Use {"action":"list"} when the user has not named an id.

CLI fallback:

caveman cloud experiments list
caveman cloud experiments show <id>
caveman cloud experiments results <id>

Stop if login, project, experiment, or results are unavailable.

Step 2 — Evaluate evidence

Report:

  • current lifecycle state and safety class;
  • control and candidate sample sizes;
  • quality or eval result;
  • latency, error, cost, retry, drop, and escalation guardrails when present;
  • evidence cost;
  • rollback or hold reason;
  • whether result is pending, failed, promotable, or active.

Absence is not a pass. If a required field is absent, state evidence incomplete and do not propose approval.

Step 3 — Propose one action

Allowed actions:

  • start — only from a startable draft or queued state with configured graders;
  • approve — only with complete passing evidence and a safety class the current role may approve;
  • cancel — stop a non-active experiment the user no longer wants;
  • rollback — revert an active or harmful change through the server's linked policy path. Current deployments may reject this honestly with cave_not_implemented; never describe that response as a rollback.

Show recommendation and id:

Proposed action: approve experiment 7f...
Reason: candidate passed quality and every configured guardrail.
Execution: blocked until server-authoritative lifecycle and evidence gates ship.

Do not treat earlier generic statements such as "manage it" or "do what is best" as mutation approval.

Step 4 — Block unsafe execution

Do not emit or run an executable lifecycle command. Explain that current server does not yet enforce every evidence/state transition atomically. CLI and MCP agent surfaces therefore expose experiment reads only.

Step 5 — Re-read after external operator action

If operator says they executed command, read detail and results again. Report server-observed post-state, audit or result response, and any policy-delivery status returned. Never infer success from operator intent alone.

Use this close:

Action: <action> <experiment-id>
Before: <state>
Server response: <status and cave_snake_code if any>
After: <re-read state>
Basis: experiment evidence only. Verified savings unchanged unless the signed
ledger independently records active, provider-causal real-traffic savings.

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.