consolidate
Skill14 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review multiple existing skills for overlapping roles and consolidate suitable candidates after confirming the proposed grouping with the user. Preserve each retained capability and quality requirement; keep distinct roles separate when merging adds complexity.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vinaySankar2004/vuhritheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- jantichy/claudetheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- es6kr/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- boaz-hwang/distillword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- ilanbm/kpoppertheir own version, first seen Sep 23, 2026
- spscream/ai-floppytheir own version, first seen Sep 13, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- boaz-hwang/distill★ 14100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- jantichy/claude★ 45same name
- ilanbm/kpopper★ 12same name
- es6kr/skills★ 2same name
- spscream/ai-floppy★ 2same name
- dominionism/Playbook★ 0same name
- vinaySankar2004/vuhri★ 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
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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
- Distinctive: line 21
Keep distinct purposes separate, especially when merging requires many branches, conflicting rules, or incompatible dependencies.
- Distinctive: line 39
Keep restorable originals and stage replacements outside active skill discovery.
- Distinctive: line 51
If the merge becomes less coherent than the originals, revise the plan with the user.
- Distinctive: line 55
Check metadata, resource links, and known callers.
- Distinctive: line 64
If a necessary check or judgment remains unresolved, leave the originals active and present the staged candidate with the specific gap.
- Distinctive: line 69
After required verification and human judgments, apply only the confirmed mapping.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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.
Files
Consolidate
Reduce duplicated skills without losing useful behavior. Compare intended results and quality requirements, not just names or similar prose. Discuss in the user's language.
1. Compare the supplied skills
Inspect the skills or skill directory the user identifies. Use names and descriptions to find candidates, then read their instructions, linked resources, evaluation criteria, and available accepted examples. Identify differences in outcomes, inputs, templates, constraints, permissions, and required tools or environments.
Group skills only when one coherent skill can serve their purposes more clearly. Represent incidental input or template differences as inputs/resources when suitable. Keep distinct purposes separate, especially when merging requires many branches, conflicting rules, or incompatible dependencies. If no merge helps, report that.
2. Confirm the consolidation plan
Show each proposed source-to-target mapping, the target name and one-line purpose, essential behavior to preserve, and what will remain separate or be retired. Explain meaningful differences and ask the user to resolve conflicting requirements; do not silently discard one source's constraints or broaden its permissions. Account for existing target folders and known callers before proposing replacement.
Wait for confirmation of the concrete plan before consolidating. Reconfirm material revisions to the grouping, outcome, retained requirements, or retirement plan. Confirmation already given for the current plan remains valid; silence is not approval. Limit changes to the confirmed skills and mappings.
3. Build the minimal replacement
Keep restorable originals and stage replacements outside active skill discovery. Extract the shared essentials; review deletion, merging/shortening, and revision before adding anything. Do not concatenate source instructions or turn a successful exception into a universal rule.
Preserve necessary source-specific capabilities through concise input handling or templates. Keep only needed resources and code, with relative references and clear dependencies. Choose tools and languages for the task. Do not move excess text into references or introduce a mandatory chain of other skills to hide complexity. Carry meaningful source checks and their invocation into the replacement; instruct it to run them before delivery, report failed or untested criteria, and present concrete review questions only for judgments code cannot establish. If the merge becomes less coherent than the originals, revise the plan with the user.
4. Verify retained capabilities
Check metadata, resource links, and known callers. Reuse the sources' meaningful checks and representative accepted examples from each source, including differences the merge could erase. Compare the candidate with the relevant source under comparable conditions; use an unseen input when feasible. Keep acceptance criteria fixed and verify final artifacts or state, not just the agent's completion claim.
Choose verification proportional to the changes. Code checks cover objective criteria; give the user specific questions for remaining human judgments. A format pass or shorter combined file alone does not demonstrate capability preservation. If a necessary check or judgment remains unresolved, leave the originals active and present the staged candidate with the specific gap.
5. Replace the confirmed sources
After required verification and human judgments, apply only the confirmed mapping. Preserve intervening and unrelated edits. Update known references and remove approved sources from active discovery, keeping their recovery copies or history outside it.
Report the final mapping, what was preserved, verification results, and recovery location. Finish without another routine approval gate.
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.