agentleFS
dtiger1889-opsdtiger1889-ops/claude-harness-toolbox/skills/prevent/SKILL.md

prevent

Skill31 starsChanged 31 days agoMITView on GitHub

Corrects a repeated or documented mistake and strengthens the failing workflow so the rule is encountered or enforced at decision time. Use for /prevent, "we've talked about this", "you should know this", "this is documented", or "why do you keep doing this" about previous work. Delivers a durable workflow change, not a promise.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    Find the existing knowledge: Search relevant instructions, current state, decisions, archives, and targeted transcript excerpts.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify reach and behavior: Check that the failing workflow actually loads or fires the change.

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not create an unnecessary edit merely to claim prevention.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Use the connected filesystem and re-check its reachable roots if needed.

    line 26

≈ “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

Prevent recurrence

  1. Correct the immediate mistake. Identify the wrong action plainly and fix it within the authorized scope. Do not delay the correction for the prevention work.
  2. Find the existing knowledge. Search relevant instructions, current state, decisions, archives, and targeted transcript excerpts. Cite the source. If it was never recorded, say so rather than inventing prior documentation.
  3. Diagnose the missed path. Establish whether the rule was absent, misplaced, buried, in the wrong layer, skipped by this entry point, or read but unenforced. Separate proven causes from hypotheses.
  4. Change the narrowest reliable layer:
    • Mechanical patterns: a tested hook, validator, or deny rule.
    • Local workflow constraints: a short colocated instruction.
    • Stable project behavior: project instructions.
    • Mutable state or pending implementation: the project's state or tracker.
    • Cross-project behavior: the shared instructions, only when every affected workflow needs it.
  5. Verify reach and behavior. Check that the failing workflow actually loads or fires the change. For enforcement, test a violating case and a legitimate exception. Record any untested limitation.
  6. Report briefly: correction applied; source and diagnosed gap; durable change and verification.

Preserve detailed records in their existing owner documents; add a short pointer rather than duplicating history. Follow the project's versioning, changelog, and size conventions. Use its designated durable store, not a new parallel memory system.

Do not create an unnecessary edit merely to claim prevention. If the existing rule is correct, address enforcement or the read path. For recurrence across entry points, strengthen the general failure family rather than adding a separate rule for each incident.

Restricted runtimes

Use the connected filesystem and re-check its reachable roots if needed. A shell in a container does not imply access to the user's machine.

If local configuration or hooks cannot be edited or tested, write a concrete proposal in the owning project's existing tracker: exact destination, trigger, rule text, exceptions, and acceptance checks. Mark implementation pending. If no durable write is possible, give the proposal and state the access blocker; never claim it is installed.

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.