agentleFS
ZachArticulateVZachArticulateV/designer-pro-and-seo/AGENTS.md

designer-pro-and-seo

AGENTS.md10 starsChanged 25 days agoMITView on GitHub

This file is the platform-neutral companion to CLAUDE.md. Any coding agent that reads AGENTS.md — Codex, Gemini, Cursor, Aider, or another assistant — should treat the rules here as the contract for working inside the designer-pro-and-seo plugin. It mirrors the role CLAUDE.md plays: how the skills in this repo are invoked, composed, and extended. Where the two files describe the same rule, they must agree; if they ever drift, that is a bug. 1. Skills compose; they do not duplicate.…

The file

We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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:

    Shared infrastructure first: Before adding a Python helper to a skill, look in scripts/.

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    Create 3 isolated worktrees or sibling output folders.

    line 57
  3. Distinctive:

    Every folder carries its own README.md — start at README.md → "Repository map".

    line 100
  4. Very specific:

    Every skill body, script, and template follows references/ENGINE-CONTRACTS.md.

    line 118
  5. Very specific:

    Keep both gates green before "done": scripts/smoke_test.py and scripts/verify_release.py.

    line 142

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 40,246 AGENTS.md 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
AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md — Operating instructions for any agent in this plugin

This file is the platform-neutral companion to CLAUDE.md. Any coding agent that reads AGENTS.md — Codex, Gemini, Cursor, Aider, or another assistant — should treat the rules here as the contract for working inside the designer-pro-and-seo plugin. It mirrors the role CLAUDE.md plays: how the skills in this repo are invoked, composed, and extended. Where the two files describe the same rule, they must agree; if they ever drift, that is a bug.

Core operating principles

  1. Skills compose; they do not duplicate. A request that spans design + SEO + QA is handled by dispatching the relevant skills — sequentially or as parallel sub-agents — not by re-implementing one skill's job inside another. Each skill owns one capability; orchestrators chain them.
  2. Clean-room originality (hard constraint). Reference archives — other plugins, articles, competitor pages — may be read to understand a capability, but never copied, transcribed, or paraphrased into this repo. Every skill body, script, template, and data row is authored or generated from first principles or from public standards. Record provenance in references/PROVENANCE.md. Because the repo ships publicly under MIT, it must carry no third-party licensed code, copyrighted text, or real client/brand names.
  3. Shared infrastructure first. Before adding a Python helper to a skill, look in scripts/. Before adding a prompt template, look in templates/. Before adding a data table, look in data/. Reuse over duplication, always.
  4. Originality of voice. Skill bodies, prompt templates, and README content are written from scratch in the project's own voice. External material can inform the idea; it must never appear as verbatim text.
  5. No source-creator names in skill names. Skills are named by action and capability only. Any attribution to an external concept belongs in commit messages and references/ notes — never in a user-facing skill name.

Skill families and when to reach for them

The user wants...Reach for...
Build a website / spin up variantsparallel-build → blast-prompt → design-system-gen → variants
Audit a site for SEOseo-audit (dispatches to its sub-skills; for a local build, scripts/workflow/site_audit.py is the one-command baseline)
Accessibility / WCAG checkdesign-accessibility
Port a build to WordPress / GHL / Webflowportable-html-port
Pre-delivery / ship-readiness checkqa-gate (static path: scripts/workflow/qa_gate.py --report)
Review code the agent just wroteroute-codex-review — route to a different model, never self-review
Whole-repo or long-file analysisroute-gemini-context
Pick colors / fonts / a styledesign-system-gen then design-dimensions
Competitor comparison pagesseo-competitor-pages
Detect SEO regressions since last deployseo-drift

Parallel build pattern (encoded once, reused everywhere)

parallel-build is the reusable 3-variant build primitive:

  1. Capture the brief (target business, 3 inspiration sources).
  2. Create 3 isolated worktrees or sibling output folders.
  3. Dispatch 3 parallel sub-agents — same brief, a different inspiration source each.
  4. Each sub-agent runs design-system-gen first so variants share token consistency.
  5. Each does a one-shot build, iterating only when needed.
  6. Return a side-by-side comparison; the user cherry-picks sections to merge.

Other build-style skills (e.g. design-build) call this pattern when the user explicitly asks for variants.

QA gate as mandatory pre-delivery

For any client-bound deliverable, qa-gate is the final step before handoff. It emits a structured PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL report with Risk Rating (Low / Med / High / Critical), Critical Issues, Warnings, Recommendations, Nice-to-Haves, Estimated Fix Time, and Client-Ready Status. Do not skip this gate when delivering work that leaves the building.

Routing law (no model reviews its own output)

route-three-brain codifies the hand-off:

  • Driver — the primary agent generates code, content, and design.
  • Adversarial reviewer — a different model (Codex / GPT-class) does correctness review, second-opinion debugging, and deep checking.
  • Long-context analyst — a high-context model (Gemini-class) handles repo-wide reads and multi-document synthesis.

The load-bearing rule: no model reviews its substantive own output. Same architecture means the same blind spots, so a self-review catches nothing that matters. When the user says "check your work" / "review this" / "is this right" — route to a different model via route-codex-review. This holds whichever agent is the driver: the reviewer must not be the author.

Scripts, data, extensions

  • scripts/seo/ — one engine per SEO specialist: technical, content, schema + entity graph, sitemap + link graph, images, GEO + llms.txt + the shared AI-crawler registry, hreflang, e-commerce, drift, clustering, local. Standard library only.
  • scripts/design/ — the design-system reasoning engine (CSV-backed scoring) plus the accessibility, CRO and motion audits.
  • scripts/workflow/ — orchestrators and plumbing: site_audit.py (one-command SEO health score), qa_gate.py (one-command pre-delivery gate), the score fan-in, the shared SSRF guard, the cost guard, the HTML porter, the CSV profiler.
  • Every folder carries its own README.md — start at README.md → "Repository map".
  • data/ — CSV libraries (UI styles, palettes, fonts, UX rules, product types).
  • extensions/ — optional MCP wirings; each subfolder's README explains setup.
  • templates/ — prompt templates skills reference (BLAST, 5-Dimensions, design-system starter, and so on).
  • references/ — deep docs loaded on demand so SKILL.md bodies stay lean.

Invoking bundled scripts. Skill bodies call scripts via ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/... — the variable resolves to the plugin's install directory wherever it lands, so a bare scripts/... path (which points at the user's own project) is wrong in a shipped skill. On Windows the Python launcher is py when python3 is absent; in PowerShell the variable is $env:CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT. When developing inside this repo (plugin not yet installed), run scripts with bare scripts/... paths from the repo root — exactly what scripts/smoke_test.py and scripts/verify_release.py do.

Authoring contracts (read before touching any skill)

Every skill body, script, and template follows references/ENGINE-CONTRACTS.md. The load-bearing rules:

  • SKILL.md section order is fixed, and Dependencies always precedes Notes.
  • Triggers are domain-qualified — never a bare generic verb (audit, review, generate); cross-domain route-* skills scope triggers to their own lane.
  • The dependency graph is a DAG — edges run orchestrator → specialist, never back. Mutual relationships live under Notes ("Related skills"), not Dependencies.
  • Graceful degradation — every skill that can use an optional paid tool also ships a free path and detects the tool at runtime. The free path is the product.
  • Standard-library-only Python — scripts/ add no runtime dependency; declare any unavoidable exception in a per-folder requirements.txt.
  • Secrets — environment variables only; never log keys; never write client data outside the user's workspace.
  • Status truth — a skill is Stable only once the SHIPPING.md promotion checklist passes; everything else is In development and says so in its description. A description claims only what the shipping body actually delivers.

Version + change discipline

  • Bump plugin.json version (and marketplace.json) on every meaningful change.
  • Append an entry to RELEASE-NOTES.md for each version.
  • SHIPPING.md is the source of truth for skill status; keep it, the per-skill **Status:** lines, and the descriptions in sync.
  • Keep both gates green before "done": scripts/smoke_test.py and scripts/verify_release.py.

Drift note

This file and CLAUDE.md describe the same plugin from the same rule set. Edit them together: when a core rule changes in one, change it in the other so a consistency check across the two never fails.

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.