agentleFS
arthur422tparthur422tp/Inception/skills/inception/SKILL.md

inception

Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when users ask to make fiction, presentations, documents, or organic social posts less AI-like, less generic, less templated, less formulaic, less repetitive, or less over-explained, or when claim strength may exceed the evidence. Also use for audits of model-default content choices. Do not use for authorship detection or ordinary drafting without these concerns.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions6 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 6

    1. steepy-it/steepy-apex★ 14same name
    2. steepy-it/steepy-formula★ 5same name
    3. inkatze/planwright★ 4same name
    4. afaraha8403/balakit★ 1same name
    5. XyndoX/good-bad-ugly★ 1same name
    6. mauriciovieira/groundwork★ 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

14 rules. 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 14

    Distinctive

    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:

    Use Quick Review for ordinary drafts, excerpts, posts, slide sequences, and focused questions.

    line 39
  2. Distinctive:

    Read references/core-workflow.md and exactly one domain adapter from the routing list below.

    line 41
  3. Distinctive:

    Stop for the human's decisions before material revision.

    line 45
  4. Distinctive:

    Use Deep Audit for long, high-stakes, explicitly independent, or persisted reviews.

    line 52
  5. Distinctive:

    Read references/core-workflow.md, references/reviewer-protocol.md, and exactly one domain adapter from the routing list below.

    line 54
  6. Distinctive:

    Run the Regression Audit through the reviewer protocol and present its result before any additional revision pass.

    line 60
  7. Distinctive:

    When a Deep Audit ledger is persisted, save JSON and run:

    line 77
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not classify authorship or claim that a draft is AI-generated.

    line 88
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not use vocabulary blacklists or cosmetic “humanization”.

    line 89
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not treat StoryScope population tendencies as quality rules.

    line 90
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not auto-rewrite material decisions before human disposition.

    line 91
  12. Distinctive:

    Do not give presentation advice about typography, color, spacing, grid, alignment, visual hierarchy, icons, illustrations, slide masters, …

    line 92
  13. Distinctive:

    Do not give document advice about page layout, typography, margins, pagination, tracked changes, comments, or file-format mechanics.

    line 93
  14. Distinctive:

    Do not give social-copy advice about paid ads, targeting, bidding, visual design, scheduling, or algorithm speculation.

    line 94

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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

Inception

Core Principle

Balance two equal responsibilities:

  • Deconvergence: identify observable model-default features, cluster cues that perform the same work, explain how the cluster contributes to perceived AI-like convergence, and offer a credible structural way to disrupt it when material.
  • Intent preservation: compare that cluster with the author's intent, preserve factual and domain constraints, include a credible reason to keep the choice, and leave every material revision to human disposition.

Neither responsibility is a disclaimer or an afterthought. A useful finding makes both visible:

observable feature cues
  → co-occurring cluster
  → AI-like convergence effect
  → upstream content decision
  → relationship to author intent
  → keep and pattern-disrupting alternatives
  → human decision

Invoking Inception establishes the baseline goal of reducing perceived model-default or AI-like convergence without sacrificing intent. Do not ask the human to restate either half. Treat defaults as candidates, not defects: familiarity alone never decides whether a choice should remain. Diagnose content decisions rather than disliked words, and do not substitute word replacement, forced informality, or invented personal voice for structural change.

StoryScope features are atomic inspection cues. Inception groups them into intent-relevant narrative decisions while preserving a concise feature-to-cluster trace for human review.

Select Review Depth

Default to Quick Review. Use Deep Audit when the user asks for a deep, full, exhaustive, independent, or persisted review; when the artifact is long enough that cross-unit dependencies are central; or when safety, compliance, policy, public claims, or another high-stakes constraint makes an independent audit proportionate. Never select Deep Audit merely because subagents are available. Do not select Deep Audit based on candidate count alone.

State the selected depth in one short sentence when it affects latency, output, or reviewer use. Follow an explicit user choice.

Quick Review

Use Quick Review for ordinary drafts, excerpts, posts, slide sequences, and focused questions.

  1. Read references/core-workflow.md and exactly one domain adapter from the routing list below.
  2. Infer a minimal Intent Snapshot from the request and draft. Ask only when a missing answer could materially change the review.
  3. Audit in the main context. Return a small prioritized set of decision cards, usually one to three, with no hard maximum. If additional material candidates remain, briefly identify their scope and offer to continue Quick Review, run a focused follow-up, or switch to Deep Audit when its actual selection criteria apply. Never suppress a material finding to preserve the usual count.
  4. Present each card in natural language: feature cluster and convergence effect, current choice and evidence, intent relevance, credible keep/pattern-disrupting options, trade-off, and recommendation. Do not expose JSON or internal workflow terminology unless useful to the user.
  5. Stop for the human's decisions before material revision.
  6. Apply only accepted or modified actions, then run a same-agent Regression Check over the authorized scope and affected intent constraints.

Quick Review is not a shortcut around evidence or human authority. It changes review depth and presentation, not the decision gate.

Deep Audit

Use Deep Audit for long, high-stakes, explicitly independent, or persisted reviews.

  1. Read references/core-workflow.md, references/reviewer-protocol.md, and exactly one domain adapter from the routing list below.
  2. Establish the full Intent Contract and resolve material open questions.
  3. For fiction, also read the complete StoryScope feature registry.
  4. Dispatch an independent reviewer when available. If none is available, perform a clearly identified same-agent fallback; never simulate independence.
  5. Present the evidence-backed Decision Ledger and stop for human disposition.
  6. Apply only accepted or modified actions in the main-agent role.
  7. Run the Regression Audit through the reviewer protocol and present its result before any additional revision pass.

Domain Routing

Select exactly one adapter and read it completely:

  • Fiction, story, scene, or narrative → references/fiction-adapter.md
  • Deck, slide, presentation copy, or speaker-facing argument → references/presentation-text-adapter.md
  • Report, proposal, memo, specification, policy, SOP, or other sustained document text → references/document-text-adapter.md
  • Organic brand or personal social post, caption, thread, or post series → references/social-copy-adapter.md

For an unsupported domain, explain that no adapter exists and stop. Do not borrow the nearest adapter's assumptions.

Output Contract

Keep findings bounded and prioritized. Every decision card or ledger entry must use the existing fields to preserve both halves of the analysis: the observed feature cluster and its convergence effect, plus its relationship to intent. Alternatives must include a credible keep option and, when revision is recommended, a credible structural option that disrupts the identified pattern. An empty review is valid.

When a Deep Audit ledger is persisted, save JSON and run:

python scripts/validate_ledger.py <ledger.json>

Fix every reported invariant violation before revision.

Hard Boundaries

  • Inception is not an authorship detector or a cosmetic, word-level humanizer. Reducing perceived AI-likeness through content and structural change is in scope; inferring provenance is not.
  • Do not classify authorship or claim that a draft is AI-generated.
  • Do not use vocabulary blacklists or cosmetic “humanization”; do not substitute them for content or structural decisions.
  • Do not treat StoryScope population tendencies as quality rules.
  • Do not auto-rewrite material decisions before human disposition.
  • Do not give presentation advice about typography, color, spacing, grid, alignment, visual hierarchy, icons, illustrations, slide masters, or visual style.
  • Do not give document advice about page layout, typography, margins, pagination, tracked changes, comments, or file-format mechanics.
  • Do not give social-copy advice about paid ads, targeting, bidding, visual design, scheduling, or algorithm speculation.

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.