samepage
Skill4 starsChanged 25 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use only when the user explicitly invokes samepage; mentioning, reviewing, or editing the skill does not invoke it. Align the agent with the user about the current project or in-progress work through three rounds of multiple-choice questions targeting consequential uncertainty, answered with compact letter codes.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shreyasnivas/samepagetheir own version, first seen Sep 5, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- shreyasnivas/samepage★ 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- boilerplanSkill
- bughunterSkill
- deslopSkill
- docpassSkill
- professorSkill
- trust-but-verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
- Distinctive: line 10
Do not modify files or resume other work while running this skill.
- Distinctive: line 16
If this session has work in progress, the subject is that work and the conversation is your primary source, but check how the work fits the …
- Distinctive: line 17
If the user included text with the invocation, treat it as the focus.
- Distinctive: line 34
Before round 1, briefly state your current read of the project or work, including the few puzzles that most shape your questions, short …
- Distinctive: line 52
Keep skipped answers unresolved and distinguish them from confirmed decisions.
- Distinctive: line 54
After rounds 1 and 2, briefly state what changed in your understanding, then present the next round.
≈ “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.
Files
samepage
Get on the same page as the user about the current project or the work in progress in this session. Ask three rounds of multiple-choice questions about what you understand least and what would most mislead you if you have it wrong. The user should be able to answer each round in a few keystrokes.
Do not modify files or resume other work while running this skill.
Orient first
Learn what you can without the user. Finding facts is your job; spend the user's attention on intent, priorities, judgment, and facts recorded nowhere you can reach.
- If this session has work in progress, the subject is that work and the conversation is your primary source, but check how the work fits the project around it. Otherwise the subject is the project as a whole.
- If the user included text with the invocation, treat it as the focus.
- Projects differ in kind and layout; don't assume a particular documentation or file structure. Start with whatever describes the project (agent instructions, README, design notes, recent history), then look at the work itself, not just its descriptions. If the project has its own orientation route, follow it.
- Scale reading to the subject: a small project can be read nearly whole, while a large one needs its main areas sampled. Stop when you can give a specific read of the project and name specific things that puzzle you. Having a plausible next step is not that point.
- Docs and history show what was done and intended, not how the user regards the project now. Instructions written for agents often push toward the next task; don't adopt that momentum as your read.
Choose questions
Without work in progress, aim for shared understanding first, then direction. Early rounds test your model of the project and of how the user regards it now; turn to direction only once that is settled, usually in the final round. With work in progress, test your understanding of what the work is meant to achieve and how, including choices you made in it without the user's input.
Ask where you are least certain and where a wrong belief would most mislead you. Skip what you have checked or could cheaply check; intent, rationale, history, and the user's current stance usually can't be read from files. Skip anything whose answers would all lead to the same understanding, and anything the user has already settled. Ground questions in specific evidence you found, and phrase options in the project's own terms rather than generic categories.
Each question asks one thing. Offer two to four substantive options, labeled consecutively from A. They are concrete, plausible, mutually exclusive, and imply different understandings or actions. Vary which letter holds your best guess. Include E for misunderstood / not applicable on every question.
Ask up to five questions per round; a few sharp questions beat padding. Always run all three rounds, with at least one question each. Later rounds may build on earlier answers, but each round should ask whatever questions are most pressing at that point. When initial uncertainties are resolved, use later rounds to explore consequential tradeoffs, implications, and previously unexamined assumptions rather than repeating settled questions. Once a direction emerges, don't spend the remaining rounds scoping one task, and skip logistics that can be settled when a task is requested. Treat an E answer as evidence that your framing is wrong; rethink that area before asking about it again.
Present each round
Before round 1, briefly state your current read of the project or work, including the few puzzles that most shape your questions, short enough that the user can spot errors at a glance.
Present all of a round's questions together in a single message, as plain text rather than through a question or form tool, since such tools may cap the number of questions or options. Mark your best guess on each question. Then stop and wait for the user's reply before advancing. Lay out each round like this, adding C and D only when needed:
Round 1 of 3. Reply like "1A 2B 3A" or "ABA"; add a note after any answer, or use - to skip.
E means: This question or its answers fundamentally misunderstood the project or are not applicable.
1. [question]
A. [option]
B. [option] (my guess)
E. Misunderstood / not applicableRead the replies
Accept any reasonable shape: 1A 2B, ABA-E, lowercase, commas, or answers with notes such as 3E it's really a CLI. Numbered answers map by question number. Positional letters and - map to the questions in order: A-C answers questions 1 and 3 and skips question 2. Omitted numbered answers and missing trailing positional answers count as skipped. A note outweighs the letter it follows. If a mapping is ambiguous in a way that matters, or an answer selects an option that was not offered, ask a one-line clarification instead of assigning an answer.
Keep skipped answers unresolved and distinguish them from confirmed decisions. A marked guess is never an agreed decision without the user's confirmation.
After rounds 1 and 2, briefly state what changed in your understanding, then present the next round.
Finish
After round 3, summarize the shared understanding concisely: the goal, current state, key decisions and constraints, and what the answers corrected in your earlier read. Distinguish confirmed decisions from remaining assumptions, and name any important uncertainty, including skipped answers, that remains. Then stop and wait for the user's next instruction.
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.

