agentleFS
andresthorandresthor/skills/skills/anchor/SKILL.md

anchor

Skill2 starsChanged 44 days agoMITView on GitHub

Distill the current conversation's hard-won mental model(s) it can be what you just discussed or if no argument is given, the whole session context. When a topic is named, the named argument only — into a one-line-bullet cheat sheet the user can skim to reload context fast ("cliff notes for executive-function loading"). Use whenever the user says "anchor this", "add this to the cheat sheet", "write down these mental models", "make me cliff notes", "capture this so I don't have to re-derive it", or after a long clarifying discussion asks to save the understanding somewhere. Also reach for it when the user says a concept finally clicked and they want it kept. With arguments, focus on the named topics; with no arguments, judge what carried the most cognitive load in the recent conversation.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. Kshitijpalsinghtomar/depth-skills★ 5same 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Arguments set the scope: If the user named a topic or pointed at a thing ("that diagram", "the yes/no path"), anchor that argument only — …

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not widen to cover the session: other topics, today's facts (ids, dates, numbers, incidents), and who-said-what stay out even when they …

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    Only when NO argument is given: scan the recent conversation for moments where clarity was expensive to reach:

    line 40
  4. Distinctive:

    Leave out: narrative, process, who-said-what, anything the user never stumbled on.

    line 50
  5. Distinctive:

    If the user's instructions (including their local context file) say where generated, non-committed files go — use that.

    line 65
  6. Distinctive:

    Merge — never duplicate: Read the file before writing.

    line 74
  7. Distinctive:

    One idea per bullet, one line each: If a bullet needs two lines, it's two bullets or too much detail for a cheat sheet.

    line 80

≈ “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

anchor

Re-deriving a mental model that was already built once is expensive; skimming ten one-line bullets is cheap. Your job: capture the identified model (argument) or models built in this conversation so the next session — or the user walking into a meeting cold — can "reload" the concept or concepts in under a minute.

This is NOT a summary of the conversation. It is a distillation of the understanding of one or more concepts — the things that were confusing until they weren't.

What to capture

INVARIANT — Argument sets the scope

Arguments set the scope. If the user named a topic or pointed at a thing ("that diagram", "the yes/no path"), anchor that argument only — the unit is the argument, not the session. Do not widen to cover the session: other topics, today's facts (ids, dates, numbers, incidents), and who-said-what stay out even when they feel load-bearing — they belong in the project's fact/doc files, not here. The scan list below applies only to grounding the named argument.

Argument-scoped sheets are SHORT. A named argument typically needs 1 section and 2–5 bullets — if your draft exceeds that, you are smuggling in session material; cut it.

No argument given

Only when NO argument is given: scan the recent conversation for moments where clarity was expensive to reach:

  • Distinctions that resolved confusion — "X and Y are two different moments, don't blend them". These are the highest-value anchors; if one distinction organizes everything else, lead the whole sheet with it.
  • Cardinalities and mappings — 1:1:1 relationships, what scales with what, which object multiplies. Confusion here is quiet and expensive.
  • Anatomy — the shape of a key/token/payload/config the user had to have explained.
  • Decided vs open — one-liners for what's settled (so it isn't relitigated) and what's genuinely open (so it isn't assumed settled).
  • Guardrails — "settled, don't reopen", priority ceilings, constraints from other teams. Collect these in a closing Standing guardrails section.
  • Corrections of prior belief — where the user (or the docs) believed X and it turned out to be Y. State Y plainly; don't re-narrate the correction.

Leave out: narrative, process, who-said-what, anything the user never stumbled on. If it was never confusing, it doesn't need an anchor.

Fresh-session test for every bullet: would this line still be true — and still useful — in a new session on this same project, without today's context? A bullet naming session specifics (a teammate, an environment id, a probe result, a latency number) fails: that is a fact, not a model. Cut it, or move it to the project's fact file.

With arguments: scope as above. Without arguments (only then): judge from the list.

Where it goes

One sheet, merged over time — never a new file per invocation.

First resolve the root, in this order:

  1. If the user's instructions (including their local context file) say where generated, non-committed files go — use that.
  2. Else, if .context/ exists at the repo root — use it, following .context/AGENTS.md if present.
  3. Else — ask once where to save (use a structured question dialog if your tool has one); if you cannot ask, use the repo root and state where you wrote.

Then place the sheet under that root. Two cases:

  • An active project directory exists — a project folder (under projects/ or research/) that this session has already been writing into, or one the user named. The sheet is anchor.md inside it, alongside the effort it describes. A project path merely mentioned or read once does not count; when in doubt, use the bucket.
  • Otherwise — the sheet goes in an anchor/ bucket under the root, named YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md, where the slug names the topic.

Merge — never duplicate. Read the file before writing. Update an existing section in place when a topic recurs; replace bullets the conversation has contradicted (the sheet states current truth, not history); append new sections for genuinely new topics.

In a project directory there is exactly one anchor.md, so the merge target is obvious. In an anchor/ bucket, glob anchor/*-<slug>.md first: if one matches, merge into it and leave the filename alone — the date records when the sheet was started, not when it was last touched. Create a new dated file only when no slug matches. A bucket full of near-duplicate sheets defeats the whole point, because then the user has to read all of them to find out what's currently true.

Style contract (the whole point — hold it strictly)

  • One idea per bullet, one line each. If a bullet needs two lines, it's two bullets or too much detail for a cheat sheet.
  • Bold the key term in a bullet so a skimming eye catches it.
  • Lead with the most organizing distinction — the one bullet that makes the rest make sense.
  • Short ## sections with plain names. A section is 2–6 bullets; more means split or prune.
  • Tiny ASCII fragments only when a shape genuinely beats words (a 3-line mapping, an arrow chain). No elaborate diagrams — those belong in the full docs, which the sheet can point to. The sheet may contain at most one ASCII fragment, at most 8 rendered lines.
  • Plain words. No unexplained jargon: the sheet must work when the reader has ZERO context loaded — that's its entire job.
  • When the argument names a diagram (the yes/no path, a flow): the diagram itself goes on the sheet as the section's body — surrounding bullets stay ≤ 4.
  • Standing guardrails are FORBIDDEN in argument-scoped sheets (they belong only to no-argument session scans). Never invent them for a named topic — the named topic absorbed no session guardrails.

Example (shape, not content)

The subject below is invented. Read it for the shapes — an organizing distinction first, then cardinalities, anatomy, and guardrails last.

# Cheat sheet — mental models (skim to reload context)

## The two delivery moments (don't blend them)
1. **Accept** ("did we take the event?", once) → 202 and a queue write. Decided.
2. **Deliver** ("did the subscriber get it?", retried) → the backoff debate lives here.

## Cardinalities (1:N:N)
- 1 event : N subscriptions : N attempts. Attempts scale with **retries**, not subscribers.
- Pausing a subscription stops **new attempts only** — in-flight ones still land.

## Payload anatomy
- `id` is the **attempt** id, not the event id. Dedupe on `event_id`.

## Standing guardrails
- Ordering: not guaranteed, by design. Settled — don't reopen.
- Retry ceiling is 5. Raising it needs a capacity review first.

After writing

Reply with two or three sentences: where the sheet lives, which sections were added or updated, and — if you merged — what got replaced. Don't paste the sheet back into the chat; the user just wrote it with you.

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.