agentleFS
Sign inStart free
bdunn313bdunn313/repolab/.agents/skills/backprop/SKILL.md

backprop

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.

3 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions3 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. JuliusBrussee/cavekit★ 1.1k100% same

    Edited · 2

    1. kborovik/grok-skills★ 211% same
    2. kborovik/spec-driven-dev★ 211% same

    Wrote their own version · 0

    None found.

    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 repository10 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, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Test failed at /build verification.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Read failure output / bug report.

    line 26
  3. Very specific:

    Commit spec edit + test + code fix together.

    line 59
  4. Distinctive:

    Every backprop run produces:

    line 82
  5. Distinctive:

    Test file (when §V added).

    line 85
  6. Distinctive:

    No dashboards. No log files.

    line 89

≈ “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

backprop — bug → spec

Plan-then-execute fixes the code & forgets. SDD fixes the code AND edits spec so recurrence is impossible. That edit is backprop.

WHEN TO BACKPROP

  • Test failed at /build verification.
  • User reports bug.
  • Post-mortem after production incident.
  • /check flags VIOLATE with root cause found.

SIX STEPS

1. TRACE

Read failure output / bug report. Find exact file:line of wrong behavior. Name root cause in one caveman sentence.

2. ANALYZE

Ask three questions:

  • Would a new §V invariant catch this class of bug? (most common: yes)
  • Is §I wrong — did spec claim shape the code cannot deliver? (sometimes)
  • Is §T wrong — did we build the wrong thing? (rare but real)

3. PROPOSE

Draft the spec change. Never skip §B; §V/§I/§T are case-by-case.

Template:

§B row: B<next>|<date>|<root cause>|V<N>
§V line: V<next>: <testable rule that would have caught it>

Example:

§B row: B3|2026-04-20|refund job ran twice on retry|V7
§V line: V7: ∀ refund → idempotency key check before charge reversal

4. GENERATE TEST

New invariant without test = lie. Add failing test first. Name test so it cites the invariant: TestV7_RefundIdempotent.

5. VERIFY

Fix code. Run test. Must pass. Run full suite. Must not regress.

6. LOG

Commit spec edit + test + code fix together. Commit msg: backprop §B.<n> + §V.<N>: <one-line cause>.

WHAT MAKES A GOOD INVARIANT

  • Testable in code (grep-able or assert-able).
  • Scoped to a behavior, not a file.
  • Stated positively when possible (! hold over ⊥ forbid).
  • References §I surface where it applies.

Bad: V8: code should be correct. Good: V8: ∀ pg_query ! params interpolated via driver, ⊥ string concat.

WHEN NOT TO ADD §V

  • Bug was purely mechanical typo with no class (i++ vs i-- in throwaway).
  • Fix is a one-time migration.
  • Root cause is external dep (upgrade deps instead, note in §C).

Still append §B entry — record that this failure mode was considered. Future bug with same smell → §B search shows precedent.

OUTPUT SHAPE

Every backprop run produces:

  1. §B entry (always).
  2. §V entry (usually).
  3. Test file (when §V added).
  4. Code fix.
  5. One commit.

No dashboards. No log files. SPEC.md + git is the full history.

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.

Check your setup, free