agentleFS
Sign inStart free
elicitlyelicitly/demos/skills/account-enrichment/SKILL.md

account-enrichment

Skill1 starsChanged 36 days agoMIT-0View on GitHub

Elicitly demo (sample data, writes nothing). Propose updates to a sample CRM account from two enrichment sources and let a human review, edit and pick fields in a diff grid. Use only when the user asks to enrich the Larkspur Robotics demo account or to run the account-enrichment demo.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. Nimbleway/agent-skills★ 74same 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.

  • In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Instead of overwriting, the agent proposes changes in a grid: two Source columns (Apollo, Crunchbase), the Current CRM value, and an …

    line 13
  2. Very specific:

    Read assets/proposal.json.

    line 20
  3. Very specific:

    Call elicit_proposal with that object as-is.

    line 22
  4. Very specific:

    Call elicit_await with the elicitationId.

    line 25
  5. Very specific:

    If the status is submitted or declined, call elicit_result:

    line 27

≈ “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

Account enrichment

Demo. Uses made-up sample data from assets/, connects to no real system, and changes nothing. It's a reference for how to use Elicitly: adapt it to your own data and systems.

Enrichment tools disagree, and the CRM already holds values someone typed in. Instead of overwriting, the agent proposes changes in a grid: two Source columns (Apollo, Crunchbase), the Current CRM value, and an editable Proposed column. The reviewer chooses field by field, and only included fields come back.

Steps

  1. Read assets/proposal.json. It is a complete elicit_proposal input: the agent's proposed values are each property's default.
  2. Call elicit_proposal with that object as-is.
  3. Give the user the reviewUrl as a link, and say the proposed changes are waiting for review there.
  4. Call elicit_await with the elicitationId. While it returns pending, call it again. Stop when the status is anything else.
  5. If the status is submitted or declined, call elicit_result:
    • decision: "submitted": list each field in formSubmission with its new value, marking any value that differs from the proposed default as "edited by reviewer". Fields not in formSubmission were left unchanged; name them in one line. This demo writes nothing; say "In a real skill, these fields would be written to the CRM here."
    • decision: "declined": say no changes will be made. For expired or canceled, say no decision was made and offer to send it again.

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.

Check your setup, free