agentleFS
cheyuriycheyuriy/codelabgen/skills/source-evaluation/SKILL.md

source-evaluation

Skill1 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub

The common procedure for every codelabgen source hunter — how to fetch and inspect candidate sources, score them, assign roles, and record them with `codelabgen sources add`. Load together with the skill for the source type being searched.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Start from these criteria, then use judgment:

    line 40
  2. Distinctive:

    Add each source as one JSON object:

    line 62

≈ “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

Finding and recording sources

A course is only as good as its sources. Your job is to find the best few sources of one type, check each one, and record it so the user can review the list. Quality beats quantity: 5 excellent sources are worth more than 20 mediocre ones.

Inputs

Before searching, read:

  • .codelabgen/config.yaml: topic, pinned version, course language, budgets.sources_per_type
  • .codelabgen/research/overview.md: what the technology is, its packages, docs and repo URLs
  • codelabgen sources list --brief: what is already recorded, so you don't propose duplicates

Tools

NeedUse
Web searchWebSearch. Run several focused queries rather than one broad one
Read a pagecodelabgen fetch <url>, then Read the cached file it prints. The cache is shared, so other agents reuse your fetches
Large documents (llms-full.txt, PDFs)Grep the cached file for headings and keywords; don't Read it whole
GitHubcodelabgen github repos/code/meta/issues … (JSON output)
The library's own codecodelabgen repo clone <repo> at the pinned version
Package versionscodelabgen pkg-info <pypi|npm|crates|go> <name>

Fall back to WebFetch only for a page codelabgen fetch can't read.

Check every source before recording it

Open it (fetch and read at least the beginning and the structure). Record a source only if you have seen that:

  • it is reachable and really is what the title says
  • it is about this technology, and you know which version it targets (from the date, the version mentioned, or the API it uses)
  • it adds something: an explanation, examples, a structure or pitfalls that other recorded sources don't already cover

Score (0–1)

Start from these criteria, then use judgment:

CriterionStrongWeak
AuthorityOfficial docs or maintainers, recognized experts, universitiesAnonymous, content farms, AI-generated filler
Version fitTargets the pinned version or one compatible with itOlder major version, removed APIs
DepthExplains why, covers edge casesRestates the quickstart
Runnable examplesComplete code that runsFragments, pseudocode
FreshnessUpdated within the life of the pinned major versionPredates it

As a guide: official docs for the pinned version score 0.9–1.0, a strong independent tutorial 0.6–0.8, a useful but dated piece 0.4–0.6. Below 0.4, don't record it. Sources at 0.6 or above start ticked on the review sheet.

Roles

Give each source every role it serves well:

  • structure: shows how the topic is usually taught (tables of contents, course outlines, tutorial sequences)
  • code-truth: shows how the API really behaves in the pinned version (official examples, tests, reference docs)
  • concepts: explains ideas and the reasoning behind them
  • pitfalls: common mistakes, confusing behaviour, known problems

Recording

Add each source as one JSON object:

codelabgen sources add --course <dir> --json '{"url": "https://docs.langchain.com/oss/python/langgraph/graph-api", "type": "official-docs", "roles": ["code-truth", "concepts"], "title": "Graph API overview", "language": "en", "version": "1.x", "date": "2026-09", "score": 0.95, "reason": "Official reference for StateGraph, nodes, edges and reducers, with runnable snippets."}'
  • type is the type you were asked to search. codelabgen schema show source lists all fields.
  • title: the real title of the page, repo, book or talk.
  • reason: one sentence in English saying what the source gives the course. The user reads it when deciding.
  • language of the source itself (ISO code). date is YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD, when you know it.
  • Adding the same URL again merges the entries, so re-adding is safe.

Stay within budgets.sources_per_type for your type, unless the user's own sources push past it.

Finish

End with the status JSON (see the state-protocol skill), for example:

{"lesson": null, "status": "ok", "stage": "sources", "artifacts": [".codelabgen/sources.jsonl"], "notes": "official-docs: 6 sources added, best: Graph API overview (0.95)"}

Mention gaps in notes, such as "no university material found", so the orchestrator can tell the user.

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.