agentleFS
alchemiststudiosDOTaialchemiststudiosDOTai/harness-engineering/skills/harness-map/SKILL.md

harness-map

Skill104 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Map a repository's mechanical harness layers: canonical check command, local and CI gates, architecture boundaries, structural rules, behavioral verification, docs ratchets, evidence workflows, and operator-facing surfaces. Use when you need to understand how a repo keeps change safe.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. quocld/hephaestus-agent-skills★ 8same name
    2. dreamiurg/harness-map★ 4same 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.

  • In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Import Linter, dependency-cruiser, Bazel visibility, custom dependency tests

    line 55
  2. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when the user asks to:

    line 71
  3. Distinctive:

    document how architectural constraints are enforced

    line 76
  4. Distinctive:

    every subcommand it runs

    line 93
  5. Distinctive:

    Write a research artifact to:

    line 207
  6. Very specific:

    use plan-phase if the user wants to add or improve a harness layer

    line 279

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Harness Map

Map the repository's actual harness: the mechanical checks, policies, workflows, and artifacts that make change safe.

This skill is narrower than generic codebase research. It is specifically for answering questions like:

  • "What is the harness in this repo?"
  • "What does check actually run?"
  • "Which layers are local vs CI vs docs vs evidence?"
  • "How is architecture enforced here?"
  • "What operator surfaces teach agents how to use the harness?"

Core Principle

Map the harness as implemented, not as imagined.

Prefer:

  • commands that actually run
  • config files that actually enforce policy
  • CI workflows that actually gate merges
  • docs and playbooks that actually structure investigations
  • agent/operator files that actually expose the workflow

Avoid:

  • aspirational architecture prose without enforcement
  • recommendations before the map exists
  • broad codebase summaries that skip the gate structure

What Counts as Harness

A repo harness usually includes some or all of these layers:

  1. Canonical local command
    • just check, make check, task check, npm test, etc.
  2. Architecture boundaries
    • Import Linter, dependency-cruiser, Bazel visibility, custom dependency tests
  3. Structural rules
    • ast-grep, semgrep, custom lint rules, codemod rule tests
  4. Behavioral verification
    • unit/integration tests, snapshots, goldens, deterministic checks, build verification
  5. Docs ratchets
    • docs link checks, nav checks, metadata/frontmatter checks, allowlists
  6. CI decomposition
    • matrix jobs or separate workflows that mirror harness gates
  7. Evidence workflows
    • session logs, diff reports, chunk docs, experiment records, replay/debug artifacts
  8. Operator surface
    • AGENTS.md, .codex/, environment files, repo-local skills, slash commands

When to Use

Use this skill when the user asks to:

  • map or explain the harness
  • identify all gate layers in a repo
  • compare local checks with CI checks
  • document how architectural constraints are enforced
  • understand how agents/operators are expected to use the repo safely

Workflow

1. Find the canonical local entrypoint

Inspect common entrypoint files first:

  • justfile
  • Makefile
  • package.json
  • pyproject.toml
  • task runner config files

Capture:

  • the canonical command name
  • every subcommand it runs
  • whether it chains all gates or only a subset

2. Find CI gate execution

Inspect CI workflows:

  • .github/workflows/*.yml
  • other CI configs (.gitlab-ci.yml, buildkite, etc.)

Capture:

  • job names
  • matrix dimensions
  • whether fail-fast is enabled
  • which local gates are mirrored in CI
  • which gates only exist in CI

3. Find architecture enforcement

Look for:

  • Import Linter / grimp
  • dependency-cruiser
  • layering tests
  • package-boundary configs
  • forbidden import tests

Capture:

  • contract names
  • source and forbidden modules
  • ignore lists / allowed exceptions
  • exact config path

4. Find structural rule enforcement

Look for:

  • sgconfig.yml, ast-grep rule directories
  • semgrep configs
  • custom lint rule packages
  • rule tests and snapshots

Capture:

  • rule config files
  • rule directories
  • test directories
  • snapshot/baseline locations
  • any custom parser or language extensions

5. Find behavioral verification layers

Look for:

  • test commands
  • snapshot directories
  • golden outputs
  • deterministic helpers
  • numerical equivalence docs
  • build verification steps

Capture:

  • exact commands
  • test conventions docs
  • locations of snapshots/goldens
  • special validation steps outside the main test runner

6. Find docs ratchets

Look for:

  • docs check scripts
  • nav validation
  • broken-link validation
  • frontmatter/tag checks
  • allowlists / baselines

Capture:

  • categories of docs failures
  • allowlist file paths
  • whether the check behaves as a ratchet

7. Find evidence workflows

Look for:

  • chunk docs
  • debugging session logs
  • replay/trace diff playbooks
  • benchmark result docs
  • evidence indexes

Capture:

  • index files
  • per-session or per-chunk docs
  • required evidence fields
  • exact commands recorded in those artifacts

8. Find operator-facing surfaces

Look for:

  • AGENTS.md
  • .codex/environments/*
  • .codex/skills/*
  • command docs
  • plugin manifests

Capture:

  • setup / run / test actions
  • repo-local skills that wrap harness flows
  • operator instructions that point to real commands

9. Synthesize the harness map

Write a research artifact to:

memory-bank/research/YYYY-MM-DD_HH-MM-SS_<repo>-harness-map.md

Recommended structure:

---
title: "<repo> – Harness Map"
phase: Research
date: "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS"
owner: "<agent_or_user>"
tags: [research, harness, <repo>]
---

## Canonical Entry Point
- `path:line-line` → command and subcommands

## Harness Layers
### Layer 1: Local checks
### Layer 2: Architecture boundaries
### Layer 3: Structural rules
### Layer 4: Behavioral verification
### Layer 5: Docs ratchet
### Layer 6: CI matrix
### Layer 7: Evidence workflow
### Layer 8: Operator surface

## Source Index
- `path:line-line` → what this file contributes

## Observed Command Chain
- ordered list of checks from the main command

Output Requirements

Your harness map must:

  • identify the single best local entrypoint if one exists
  • show where each layer is enforced
  • distinguish between enforced config and descriptive docs
  • include exact file paths
  • include line numbers when they materially improve traceability
  • describe what exists before suggesting changes

Good Output Example

## Canonical Entry Point
- `justfile:22-29` defines `check *args:` and runs Ruff, Import Linter, ty, docs checks, ast-grep, pytest, and Zig checks.

## Layer 2: Architecture Boundaries
- `pyproject.toml:80-110` defines four Import Linter forbidden contracts.

## Layer 6: CI Matrix
- `.github/workflows/ci.yml:13-79` runs seven matrix tasks with `fail-fast: false`.

Bad Output Example

The repo appears to care about quality and uses several tools.
It has some tests and some linting.

Handoff

Common next steps after this skill:

  • generate a condensed harness summary for operators
  • compare two repos' harnesses
  • use plan-phase if the user wants to add or improve a harness layer

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.