terminal-ops
Skill0 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub
Evidence-first repo work for ECC. Use when a user asks to run commands, check a repo, debug a CI failure, make a small fix, verify it, commit it, or push it.
- Deletes or force-pushes
9 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Rojios/everything-claude-codetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pankaj-mahaur/Agent-Daemontheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- renepf/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- chadixearth/graphylooptheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- gongyijie85/dsh-ecctheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- Fmarzochi/EGC★ 61same name
- gongyijie85/dsh-ecc★ 8same name
- chadixearth/graphyloop★ 3same name
- bjornjee/skills★ 2same name
- Rojios/everything-claude-code★ 1same name
- SamuelNDCE/claude-super-skill-library★ 1same name
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 0same name
- pankaj-mahaur/Agent-Daemon★ 0same name
- renepf/claude-skills★ 0same name
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.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
50 rules. 0 are common, 49 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
49
Distinctive
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 11
Use this skill when a task needs real work in a repo.
- Distinctive: line 17
Use these ECC skills when they fit the task:
- Distinctive: line 25
If a listed skill is not present, keep working with the tools you have.
- Distinctive: line 35
Do not use it for a general code question that needs no repo check.
- Distinctive: line 40
Check the repo and its own guide files before you edit.
- Distinctive: line 41
Check Git status before and after edits.
- Distinctive: line 42
Keep review-only work read-only.
- Distinctive: line 43
Do not edit files when the user asked only for a review or report.
- Distinctive: line 44
Keep work inside the user’s request.
- Distinctive: line 45
Do not change or remove unrelated work.
- Distinctive: line 46
Do not use commands that can erase work, such as git reset --hard, unless the user clearly asks for them.
- Distinctive: line 47
Use the repo’s scripts and tools when they exist.
- Distinctive: line 48
Do not print keys, tokens, passwords, cookies, or private data.
- Distinctive: line 49
Ask before a command may post data, deploy code, publish a release, or change a live service.
- Distinctive: line 50
Do not say a bug is fixed until the right check passes.
- Distinctive: line 51
Do not say work is committed until a commit exists.
- Distinctive: line 52
Do not say work is pushed until the remote branch has the commit.
- Distinctive: line 70
If the repo path or target branch is not clear, inspect safe choices first.
- Distinctive: line 72
If the repo has uncommitted work, find out which changes are yours.
- Distinctive: line 79
Read the files named by the error.
- Distinctive: line 80
Read the test that fails.
- Distinctive: line 81
Check Git status and the current diff.
- Distinctive: line 82
Use logs given by the user before you run broad checks.
- Distinctive: line 85
If the failure cannot be run on the local machine, state why.
- Distinctive: line 92
Follow the repo’s style.
- Distinctive: line 93
Add or update a test when it can stop the bug from coming back.
- Distinctive: line 94
Do not clean up other code unless the fix needs it.
- Distinctive: line 95
Stop broad retries when the same error keeps coming back.
- Distinctive: line 98
If a command hangs, stop it safely and report where it stopped.
- Distinctive: line 102
Start with the smallest useful check:
- Distinctive: line 104
Run the test or command that failed.
- Distinctive: line 105
Run checks for the changed area.
- Distinctive: line 106
Run the full test or build only when needed.
- Distinctive: line 122
Read the final diff.
- Distinctive: line 123
Make sure no secret or build file was added by mistake.
- Distinctive: line 124
Make sure unrelated files did not change.
- Distinctive: line 125
If asked to commit, check the commit and its message.
- Distinctive: line 126
If asked to push, check the remote branch and push result.
- Distinctive: line 128
Do not commit or push unless the user asked for it or clearly allowed it.
- Distinctive: line 132
Use only the status that the proof supports:
- Very specific: line 166
Leave out Limits when there are none.
- Distinctive: line 217
Do not trust old notes when you can check the repo now.
- Distinctive: line 218
Do not turn a small fix into a repo-wide rewrite.
- Distinctive: line 219
Do not hide failed or skipped checks.
- Distinctive: line 220
Do not call a partial test a full pass.
- Distinctive: line 221
Do not use force push unless the user clearly asks for it and knows the risk.
- Distinctive: line 222
Do not switch branches with local changes unless it is safe.
- Distinctive: line 223
Do not claim CI passed when only local tests passed.
- Distinctive: line 224
Do not claim a push worked from command intent alone.
- Distinctive: line 225
Do not ignore files changed by other people or tools.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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.
Files
Terminal Operations
Original skill by ECC. Credit ECC in copies and updates.
Use this skill when a task needs real work in a repo. This may include running commands, checking Git state, fixing a bug, testing a fix, or pushing a branch.
This skill is for careful terminal work. Base each claim on fresh proof.
Related Skills
Use these ECC skills when they fit the task:
verification-loop: Check that a change works.tdd-workflow: Add a test that fails before the fix and passes after it.security-review: Check work that uses keys, login data, or user input.github-ops: Check CI runs, pull requests, or release state.knowledge-ops: Save useful results for later work.
If a listed skill is not present, keep working with the tools you have.
When to Use This Skill
Use it when:
- The user says "fix," "debug," "run this," "check the repo," or "push."
- The answer needs command output, Git state, test results, or a local code change.
- You must tell the user if work is only changed, tested, committed, or pushed.
Do not use it for a general code question that needs no repo check.
Safety Rules
- Find the exact repo path before you run commands.
- Check the repo and its own guide files before you edit.
- Check Git status before and after edits.
- Keep review-only work read-only.
- Do not edit files when the user asked only for a review or report.
- Keep work inside the user’s request.
- Do not change or remove unrelated work.
- Do not use commands that can erase work, such as
git reset --hard, unless the user clearly asks for them. - Use the repo’s scripts and tools when they exist.
- Do not print keys, tokens, passwords, cookies, or private data.
- Ask before a command may post data, deploy code, publish a release, or change a live service.
- Do not say a bug is fixed until the right check passes.
- Do not say work is committed until a commit exists.
- Do not say work is pushed until the remote branch has the commit.
Workflow
1. Set the Work Area
Find and record:
- Repo path
- Current branch
- Git status
- User’s requested mode:
- Check
- Fix
- Verify
- Commit
- Push
If the repo path or target branch is not clear, inspect safe choices first. Ask the user only if the choice would change the work.
If the repo has uncommitted work, find out which changes are yours. Do not overwrite other changes.
2. Read the Failure First
Before you edit:
- Read the error.
- Read the files named by the error.
- Read the test that fails.
- Check Git status and the current diff.
- Use logs given by the user before you run broad checks.
- Re-run the smallest safe command that can show the failure.
If the failure cannot be run on the local machine, state why. Use the best proof that is still available.
3. Make One Small Fix
Work on one main cause at a time.
- Change only the files needed for the fix.
- Follow the repo’s style.
- Add or update a test when it can stop the bug from coming back.
- Do not clean up other code unless the fix needs it.
- Stop broad retries when the same error keeps coming back.
- Narrow the check to the failing file, test, step, or input.
If a command hangs, stop it safely and report where it stopped.
4. Check the Fix
Start with the smallest useful check:
- Run the test or command that failed.
- Run checks for the changed area.
- Run the full test or build only when needed.
Record:
- The exact command
- Whether it passed or failed
- Any skipped checks
- Any limits, such as no network, missing tools, or missing access
A check that did not run is not a pass.
5. Review the Final State
Before you report:
- Check Git status.
- Read the final diff.
- Make sure no secret or build file was added by mistake.
- Make sure unrelated files did not change.
- If asked to commit, check the commit and its message.
- If asked to push, check the remote branch and push result.
Do not commit or push unless the user asked for it or clearly allowed it.
Status Words
Use only the status that the proof supports:
- Checked: You read the repo state or failure.
- Changed locally: Files changed, but checks may not have passed.
- Verified locally: The named local checks passed.
- Committed: A local commit was made.
- Pushed: The commit reached the named remote branch.
- Blocked: A clear issue stopped the work.
More than one status may apply. For example, work can be "Committed" but not "Pushed."
Report Format
Surface
- Repo: <full path>
- Branch: <branch name>
- Mode: <check, fix, verify, commit, or push>
Evidence
- Failure: <error or failed command>
- Git state: <clean or changed>
- Check: <exact command and result>
Action
- <small list of changed files and what changed>
Status
- <checked, changed locally, verified locally, committed, pushed, or blocked>
Limits
- <checks not run and why>Leave out Limits when there are none.
Example
User request:
Fix the failing parser test and verify it. Do not push.Work:
1. Open /work/parser-app.
2. Check the branch and Git status.
3. Run: pytest tests/test_parser.py -q
4. Read the failed test and parser code.
5. Make the smallest fix.
6. Run: pytest tests/test_parser.py -q
7. Run: pytest -q
8. Check the final diff and Git status.Report:
Surface
- Repo: /work/parser-app
- Branch: fix/parser-empty-input
- Mode: fix and verify
Evidence
- Failure: pytest tests/test_parser.py -q failed on empty input
- Git state: src/parser.py and tests/test_parser.py changed
- Check: pytest tests/test_parser.py -q passed
- Check: pytest -q passed
Action
- Handled empty input in src/parser.py.
- Added a test for empty input.
Status
- Changed locally
- Verified locally
Limits
- No commit or push was requested.Common Mistakes
- Do not trust old notes when you can check the repo now.
- Do not turn a small fix into a repo-wide rewrite.
- Do not hide failed or skipped checks.
- Do not call a partial test a full pass.
- Do not use force push unless the user clearly asks for it and knows the risk.
- Do not switch branches with local changes unless it is safe.
- Do not claim CI passed when only local tests passed.
- Do not claim a push worked from command intent alone. Check the result.
- Do not ignore files changed by other people or tools.
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.

