license
Skill5 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Decide what may be carried over from a prey repository under its license. Modes are COPY, COPY_FILE, REIMPLEMENT, IDEAS_ONLY and HUMAN. Use when a nutrient's license mode is unclear, when asked whether code or configs from another repository may be copied, or when a sniff verdict says HUMAN. Do not use to choose the maw's own license, for general legal advice, or for licensing questions unrelated to prey-to-maw transfer.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- apache/skywalkingtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- Pradnyeshp/Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 6, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- apache/skywalking★ 25ksame name
- Pradnyeshp/Claude-Skills★ 2same 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
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 its established result, never a hand-edited mode.
- Distinctive: line 58
Use the actual maw's verdict for adoption decisions.
≈ “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
License rules
The verdict is produced by a deterministic engine (crab sniff, license.json in a digest).
Your job is to apply the mode, explain it, and stop when the engine says HUMAN.
The repository overview and an established selected-path verdict have separate scope.
discover packet exposes immutable path grants; explore register and serve share the resolver.
An equivalent nested grant, a notice-only COPYRIGHT or a separate licence specimen need not
relicense unrelated implementation files. The CLI retains actual grants and all applicable notices.
Use its established result, never a hand-edited mode. Unknown components, missing notices,
conflicting grants and unsupported references stay held; MIT-only applies to the selected material.
Modes
| Mode | Allowed | Required |
COPY | copy code, configs and text | keep the copyright notice; publish through crab serve --as pr-branch with a materialization receipt (the serve skill), which records the source in .crab/attributions.json and renders THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md; Apache-2.0 also needs the NOTICE file's attribution notices carried over |
COPY_FILE | copy whole files (MPL-2.0, EPL, CC-BY-SA documents) | the file keeps its own license header; do not merge it into files under the maw license; every file in the receipt is verbatim |
REIMPLEMENT | use the prey as a specification | clean room: a spec without code, then the crab-cleanroom-impl subagent without prey-cache access; record "implemented from a specification" in the trace |
IDEAS_ONLY | ideas, architecture, approaches, facts | not a line of code, configuration or documentation text |
HUMAN | nothing yet | a person decides; present the evidence (license.json: files, manifests, headers, conflicts) |
Rules that override the matrix
- Issue, discussion and pull-request comment text is always
IDEAS_ONLY: the copyright belongs to the commenters. Carry over the need and a link, not the text. The CLI enforces this from content origin, records the origin and cap reason in the nutrient trace, andcrab servecarries that trace into the served issue; do not recalculate the cap by hand. The cap rewrites the card's title andwhat; yourwhyandhoware yours to keep clean, andcrab serverefuses a card of any origin butlicensedwhose notes quote one of the prey's issue titles, in any punctuation or case, or whose notes cannot be checked. - Configuration files and small snippets are not automatically free: same mode as code.
- Strict mode is enforced by the CLI.
.crab.ymlmode: strictdowngradesCOPYcode to clean-roomREIMPLEMENT; configs and templates stay copyable.menu.jsonrecords the material, maw mode and policy reason, and served issues carry the reason in their license trace. Use that verdict and the clean-room protocol; do not calculate or reverse the downgrade by hand. - Per-file exceptions in
license.json(vendored directories, headers with another SPDX id) override the repository license for those files. - No license at all is
IDEAS_ONLYwith human review, notHUMAN.HUMANis only for a license that was read and could not be classified. The two ask for different things: underIDEAS_ONLYthe need and the facts may still travel, underHUMANnothing may until a person answers. - Review is a flag, not a mode. A conflict between the LICENSE file and a manifest does not
change the verdict — the mode still comes from the detected license, and the digest records
the conflict in
license.jsonunderconflictswithhuman_review: truebeside it. Read both:human_reviewis also true for a source-available license, whose mode isIDEAS_ONLY.
How to compute a mode
crab sniff <prey> --maw .prints the mode for this maw.license.jsonin the prey digest hasmodes_by_maw_class(permissive, gpl, proprietary maws) andverdictwhen a maw license was known at digest time.mode_maw_samplesnames the representatives:gplis GPL-3.0-only, not the whole GPL family. Use the actual maw's verdict for adoption decisions.- The full matrix is in
references/matrix.md.
This is a compliance aid, not legal advice; say so when the user asks about an edge case.
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.

