agentleFS
crankyjediiicrankyjediii/vibecraft/skills/research-scout/SKILL.md

research-scout

Skill1 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

Phase 1 Research Scout for VibeCraft. Compares 3 to 4 concrete software stacks with epistemic provenance tags (verified, inferred, gotcha), surfaces two non-obvious domain gotchas per stack, and populates stack_matrix_artifact.html. Activate on Phase 1 or /vibecraft:stack.

5 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

6 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

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

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

    If the initial prompt was Brief (<= 30 words, <= 2 sentences, missing >= 2 of platform/user/features/constraints), Q1 Angle and Q2 Ambition …

    line 21
  2. Very specific:

    Verify limits and APIs: Use web search and fetch tools (when available) to check current SDK versions, browser/OS quotas, pricing tiers, …

    line 26
  3. Very specific:

    Emit stack_matrix_artifact.html: Read templates/generative-ui/stack_matrix_artifact.html (via ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} or …

    line 29
  4. Very specific:

    Recommendation tie-breaker: Prefer the stack with offlineCapable === true when Q1 requests local-first/offline, latencyMs <= 100 for …

    line 35
  5. Very specific:

    Search / fetch unavailable or HTTP 401/429/timeout: Do not stall or fabricate citations.

    line 77
  6. Very specific:

    If the user asks to compare > 4 stacks, group variants into the top 4 distinct architectures and explain the grouping in 1 prose line.

    line 84

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Phase 1: Research Scout

Purpose

Turn a scoped product brief into an interactive 3-to-4-option Stack Matrix (stack_matrix_artifact.html) backed by dated documentation evidence, honest epistemic tags, and two concrete failure modes per candidate stack.

Inputs

  • Product idea text (either Detailed on Turn 1, or Brief paired with locked Q1 Angle and Q2 Ambition answers).
  • Existing repository package.json, Cargo.toml, or pyproject.toml when invoked standalone via /vibecraft:stack.
  • Domain starter catalog in references/gotcha-library.md (load only the matching domain section).

Preconditions

  1. Safety and scope gate passed (zero harmful or credential-harvesting intent).
  2. If the initial prompt was Brief (<= 30 words, <= 2 sentences, missing >= 2 of platform/user/features/constraints), Q1 Angle and Q2 Ambition have already been answered before running stack web searches.

Step Procedure

  1. Select 3 to 4 distinct stack candidates: Include one pragmatic recommended default (recommended: true), one lighter zero-backend or static option when viable, and one scale/native alternative.
  2. Verify limits and APIs: Use web search and fetch tools (when available) to check current SDK versions, browser/OS quotas, pricing tiers, and cold-start or binary size limits. Record the source domain and verification date in why or notes.
  3. Classify every metric honestly: Assign lowercase enum strings 'verified' | 'inferred' | 'gotcha' to latencyTag, offlineTag, and costTag. Never use 'verified' unless checked against primary documentation or measured in the current session.
  4. Surface 2 non-obvious gotchas per stack: Consult references/gotcha-library.md for baseline traps, then tailor two specific { issue, mitigation } pairs to the user's data volume, offline needs, and platform. Populate gotcha + mitigation with the primary trap and gotchas with both pairs.
  5. Emit stack_matrix_artifact.html: Read templates/generative-ui/stack_matrix_artifact.html (via ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} or ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}) and replace only const STACKS = [...]. Write to vibecraft/01-stack-matrix.html in Claude Code or render as an HTML Artifact in Claude Desktop.
  6. Reply in chat: Emit the 3-line HUD (Phase 1/4 · Stack Matrix ready · Paste VIBECRAFT PICK or name a stack) plus 1 to 3 prose lines (<= 60 words) naming the recommended stack, its decisive advantage, and the paste-back instruction.

Decision Rules (Numeric Thresholds)

  • Candidate count: Emit 3 candidates for narrow single-platform tools; emit 4 candidates when cross-platform trade-offs (web PWA vs desktop Tauri vs mobile Expo) materially change architecture. Never emit < 3 or > 4.
  • Recommendation tie-breaker: Prefer the stack with offlineCapable === true when Q1 requests local-first/offline, latencyMs <= 100 for interactive input loops, and zero recurring monthly cost ($0/mo at MVP volume < 1,000 MAU) when Q2 is weekend MVP.
  • Latency bar sanity: latencyMs must be an integer >= 1 and <= 10000 representing a named critical-path operation (for example P95 local query or cold-start TTFB), never 0 or NaN.

Output Contract

type EpistemicTag = 'verified' | 'inferred' | 'gotcha';

interface GotchaPair {
  issue: string;      // Concrete failure mode with numeric limit or API name
  mitigation: string; // Architectural fix that Phase 3/4 must implement
}

interface StackCandidate {
  id: string;                 // Kebab-case slug, e.g. 'tauri-sqlite'
  name: string;               // Archetype label, e.g. 'Local-First Desktop'
  recommended: boolean;       // Exactly one candidate is true
  stack: string;              // Concrete frameworks + storage, e.g. 'Tauri v2 + React 19 + SQLite WASM'
  why: string;                // 1-2 sentences citing workload fit
  latencyMs: number;          // Integer >= 1
  latencyNote: string;        // Named operation, e.g. 'P95 FTS5 query on 10k rows'
  latencyTag: EpistemicTag;   // Lowercase only: 'verified' | 'inferred' | 'gotcha'
  offlineLabel: string;       // e.g. 'Full local R/W' or 'Online required'
  offlineTag: EpistemicTag;
  cost: string;               // e.g. '$0 local binary' or '$0 free tier (<50k req/mo)'
  costTag: EpistemicTag;
  gotcha: string;             // Primary gotcha summary (backward-compat mirror of gotchas[0].issue)
  mitigation: string;         // Primary mitigation (backward-compat mirror of gotchas[0].mitigation)
  gotchas: [GotchaPair, GotchaPair];
}

Pasted gate output (VIBECRAFT PICK v2 · Phase 1 · Research Scout) locks Stack, ArchetypeId, Performance, Offline, Cost, and both [Gotcha] items as mandatory Phase 3 and Phase 4 requirements.

Worked Examples

See references/examples.md for two complete runs:

  1. Clean Detailed Prompt: Local Markdown knowledge base with FTS5 search (3 stacks compared, verified SQLite OPFS limits).
  2. Messy Contradictory Prompt: "real-time multiplayer video editor that runs 100% free on GitHub Pages with no server" (resolves impossibility honestly via WebCodecs + WebRTC signaling trade-offs).

Failure Modes & Recovery

  • Search / fetch unavailable or HTTP 401/429/timeout: Do not stall or fabricate citations. Downgrade unconfirmed runtime/pricing claims to 'inferred' and note "Web verification unavailable in session" inside latencyNote or why.
  • Contradictory user constraints (for example zero-server multiplayer): Explain the physical constraint in 1 prose line (<= 25 words) and compare the closest viable approximations in STACKS.
  • Read-only workspace (EACCES): Emit the populated HTML inline and print the fallback notice in 1 line.

Refusal & Escalation Rules

  • Refuse scraping kits targeting authentication walls, CAPTCHA bypassers, or abuse automation in 1 plain line with zero HUD and zero searches.
  • If the user asks to compare > 4 stacks, group variants into the top 4 distinct architectures and explain the grouping in 1 prose line.

Token / Word Budget

  • SKILL.md target: < 1,200 words (< 6,000 bytes).
  • Chat reply budget: 3-line HUD + 1 to 3 prose lines (<= 60 words total).

Self-Check List

  • Exactly 3 or 4 candidates in STACKS, with recommended: true on exactly one?
  • Are latencyTag, offlineTag, and costTag strictly lowercase 'verified' | 'inferred' | 'gotcha'?
  • Does every candidate include 2 specific { issue, mitigation } entries in gotchas (and mirrored primary gotcha/mitigation)?
  • Is chat prose 1 to 3 lines and <= 60 words with zero code blocks outside the HUD?

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.