contract-discipline
Skill7 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Requirements, scope, constraints, ownership, acceptance. Preserve the agreed task contract during ongoing work when enabled.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- audit-and-resolveSkill
- context-pagingSkill
- coordinate-workSkill
- design-skillSkill
- design-time-triggered-skillSkill
- design-validationSkill
- diagnose-and-repairSkill
- indefinite-loopSkill
- install-dev-skillsSkill
- operate-workflowSkill
- polish-docsSkill
- run-experimentSkill
- documentation-styleSkill
- evidence-disciplineSkill
- git-disciplineSkill
- scratch-spaceSkill
- testing-doctrineSkill
- context-compaction-procedureSkill
- maintain-scratchSkill
- refine-skillSkill
- security-hygiene-checkSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 14
Use current user intent and applicable project requirements as the contract.
- Distinctive: line 17
Keep source, outputs, processes, and shared resources within their assigned ownership.
≈ “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.
Files
Contract discipline
Preserve the task contract through planning, execution, and handoff. This is ongoing guidance, not a requirement to create a formal plan for every task.
For ongoing work, read and update scratch records in agents/scratch/: agreed constraints, explicit changes, and authoritative requirement links.
- Use current user intent and applicable project requirements as the contract. Existing code, tests, and historical notes are evidence; they may contain the defect or an obsolete expectation.
- Preserve relevant interface, compatibility, environment, and acceptance requirements. A faster substitute is useful only if it establishes the same required result.
- Make routine implementation choices within scope. Escalate material contract conflicts as focused decisions; continue independent work where possible.
- Keep source, outputs, processes, and shared resources within their assigned ownership. Preserve unrelated work when combining changes.
- Respect authorization boundaries. A review does not itself authorize repairs; preparing an artifact does not itself publish it. Do not ask again for authority already given.
Illustrative boundary: “The replacement passes component checks. The required cross-platform behavior is still pending; this does not yet satisfy acceptance.”
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.