agentleFS
chenson42chenson42/stackkeel/.claude/skills/downstream-sync/SKILL.md

downstream-sync

Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review what this fork has built that the canonical kit should adopt, and package each candidate as a contribution-kit spec (executable by the kit's own assistant). Cadence 30 days; the canonical kit repo detects itself and exits. Never opens a PR itself.

  • Commits and pushes

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    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:

    State: Read kit.json → sync.downstream (lastCheckedDate, proposed[]) and kit.json → paths.appSpecific (this fork's product surfaces — never …

    line 18
  2. Very specific:

    Update kit.json.sync.downstream: lastCheckedDate = today.

    line 73

≈ “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

Downstream Sync

The mirror of /upstream-sync: walk this fork's kit-generic surfaces, find changes the canonical kit should adopt (bug fixes in scaffold code, hardened checks, new reusable components, workflow improvements), and author contribution kits — one spec file per candidate. The deliverable is a spec, not a patch: a spec the kit's own assistant can execute travels better than a diff that assumes this fork's layout.

Pre-flight

  1. Self-detection. pnpm kit:check --why reports canonical → print downstream-sync: canonical kit repo — skipping (N/A). and stop.
  2. State. Read kit.json → sync.downstream (lastCheckedDate, proposed[]) and kit.json → paths.appSpecific (this fork's product surfaces — never candidates). paths.personalized entries are identity, not contributions.

Known Untested Paths

Same caveat as upstream-sync: structurally verified, never run against a live fork. First fork owner to run this is the first real test.

Step 1 — Enumerate kit-generic surfaces

Walk, in this order (skip anything under paths.appSpecific or paths.personalized):

  • scripts/ (tripwires, kit tooling) and .github/workflows/
  • packages/{auth,db,permissions,ui,tokens,brand,config}/ — generic infrastructure only
  • apps/*/src/proxy.ts, shared components under apps/*/src/components/shared/
  • .claude/skills/ and .claude/agents/
  • AGENTS.md, UI-STANDARDS.md, UX-PATTERNS.md, BRANDING.md — generic sections

For each, diff against the baseline (git log <sync.upstream.baselineSha>.. -- <path> when history is shared; otherwise reason from the fork's own commit history) and collect changes that are generic — they would help every fork, not just this product.

Step 2 — Classify candidates

ClassMeaning
backport-readyDrops into the kit with path adjustments only
needs-generalizationSound idea, fork-specific shape (names, schema, deps)
structural-proposalChanges how the kit itself is organized — needs kit-side judgment
skipProduct-specific, superseded upstream, or already in proposed[] and unchanged since

Step 3 — Author contribution kits

For each non-skip candidate, write docs/starter-contributions/NN-<slug>.md:

# NN — <title>
Origin: <fork commit(s) / work-log>
What & why: <the problem and the fix, 3–8 sentences>
Applies to the kit as: <where it lands in the kit's layout>
Implementation steps: <numbered, executable by the kit's assistant>
Verification: <how the kit proves it works>
Classification: <class> · Risk: <low/medium/high + why>

Number sequentially from the highest existing NN. Submit by PR into the canonical repo's docs/starter-contributions/incoming/ — this skill never opens the PR; it tells the user the exact gh pr create invocation to run if they want it.

Step 4 — Log + state

  • Append YYYY-MM-DD | downstream-sync | N candidates (A ready, B needs-gen, C structural) (or nothing to contribute) to docs/reviews/log.md.
  • Update kit.json.sync.downstream: lastCheckedDate = today; add each authored candidate to proposed[] as {slug, date, class} so the next run skips it unless the underlying code changed again.
  • Failures before Step 1 completes: write nothing.

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.