instruction-ablation
Skill9 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Rebuild a minimal instruction set from evidence: confirm a bare baseline, run one real task in-session under guardrails only, log struggles, and add an instruction only after the same failure repeats; retest and keep only if verification improves. Use when the user invokes /instruction-ablation or asks to ablate, thin, or rebuild AI instructions from a bare run.
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-auditSkill
- add-documentationSkill
- add-error-handlingSkill
- address-github-pr-commentsSkill
- agent-risk-reviewSkill
- agent-work-receiptSkill
- automation-roi-auditSkill
- blind-spot-passSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commit-changes-mainSkill
- commit-same-branchSkill
- commitSkill
- create-pr-mainSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- decision-auditSkill
- define-agent-goalSkill
- design-agent-loopSkill
- fix-compile-errorsSkill
- fix-git-issuesSkill
- gauntlet-loopSkill
- generate-api-docsSkill
- generate-pr-descriptionSkill
- git-sync-workspaceSkill
- light-review-existing-diffsSkill
- lint-fixSkill
- lint-suiteSkill
- merge-open-prsSkill
- optimize-performanceSkill
- pathfinderSkill
- prompt-eval-debugSkill
- refactor-codeSkill
- requirement-to-implementationSkill
- run-all-tests-and-fixSkill
- scoped-auditSkill
- security-auditSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- setup-new-featureSkill
- structure-promptSkill
- tddSkill
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewSkill
- update-memory-bankSkill
- update-readmeSkill
- write-unit-testsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈16
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 28
Run phases in order.
- Distinctive: line 37
If any field is missing, ask one focused question per gap.
- Distinctive: line 39
If the task is production-destructive and GUARDRAILS lack explicit consent for that blast radius, stop and ask before the bare run.
- Distinctive: line 45
Ask the user to confirm a clean chat / overlays disabled when possible.
- Distinctive: line 46
If they confirm: record baseline status as confirmed bare (within harness limits).
- Distinctive: line 47
If they cannot or will not: record contamination (what likely remains active) and proceed only after stating that ablation results are …
- Distinctive: line 48
Never claim hooks, memories, or rules were disabled without user confirmation.
- Distinctive: line 54
Stop when EXIT CRITERIA are met, or when blocked by a guardrail or missing capability.
- Distinctive: line 56
Do not invent success. If verification fails, say so.
- Distinctive: line 66
Do not propose a new instruction for a one-off mistake.
- Distinctive: line 70
Only for repeated failure patterns.
- Distinctive: line 120
Do not rewrite rules, skills, hooks, or memories without apply now and targets.
- Distinctive: line 121
Do not run production-destructive actions unless GUARDRAILS explicitly consent.
- Distinctive: line 122
Do not claim a bare environment without confirmation.
- Distinctive: line 132
Four intake fields required: Ask one focused question per missing TASK, GUARDRAILS, EXIT CRITERIA, or VERIFICATION gap.
- Distinctive: line 134
Never claim a bare environment without confirmation: Ask for clean-chat confirmation or declare contamination.
- Very specific: line 137
Do not skip the bare baseline for a prompt rewrite: Run ablation from baseline, or route them to prompt-eval-debug if they only want to …
≈ “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
Instruction ablation
Role
You run an instruction ablation: rebuild a minimal instruction set from a bare baseline on one real task. You execute the task in-session under GUARDRAILS only, record what already works, and propose a new instruction only when the same failure pattern repeats. For each proposal: explain the failure, write the smallest instruction, retest, and keep it only if VERIFICATION improves. You do not rewrite the user's rules, skills, hooks, or memories unless they say apply now with targets.
When to use
Use when the user invokes /instruction-ablation, asks to delete and rebuild AI instructions from evidence, or wants to thin rules/skills/hooks after models improved. For debugging a pasted prompt with a tiny eval suite, use prompt-eval-debug. For composing a new structured prompt from a rough ask, use structure-prompt. For a six-part Goal before autonomous work, use define-agent-goal.
Ablation charter
Start bare. Run a real task. Add an instruction only after repeated failure. Retest. Keep only if verification improves. Never claim the environment was bare without confirmation.
Workflow
Run phases in order.
Phase 0: Intake
- Require four fields:
- TASK: the real work to attempt
- GUARDRAILS: rules that must not be violated
- EXIT CRITERIA: exactly what "done" means
- VERIFICATION: how to test or inspect the result
- If any field is missing, ask one focused question per gap. Do not invent values.
- Optionally accept a paste or description of the user's current instruction stack (rules, skills, hooks, memories) for later delete-candidate analysis.
- If the task is production-destructive and GUARDRAILS lack explicit consent for that blast radius, stop and ask before the bare run.
Phase 1: Baseline gate
A slash command cannot disable Cursor skills, hooks, memories, or user rules.
- Ask the user to confirm a clean chat / overlays disabled when possible.
- If they confirm: record baseline status as confirmed bare (within harness limits).
- If they cannot or will not: record contamination (what likely remains active) and proceed only after stating that ablation results are contaminated.
- Never claim hooks, memories, or rules were disabled without user confirmation.
- For the bare run, do not lean on catalog workflow skills, hooks, or detailed user workflow instructions beyond GUARDRAILS and the four intake fields.
Phase 2: Bare run
- Execute the TASK in-session under GUARDRAILS only.
- Stop when EXIT CRITERIA are met, or when blocked by a guardrail or missing capability.
- Apply VERIFICATION to judge success or failure.
- Do not invent success. If verification fails, say so.
Phase 3: Struggle log
Record:
- What worked bare: behaviors that already met exit/verification without extra instructions
- One-off mistakes: failures that happened once and are not a stable pattern
- Repeated failure patterns: the same failure occurring ≥2 times in the session or across retests
Do not propose a new instruction for a one-off mistake.
Phase 4: Instruction proposals
Only for repeated failure patterns. For each pattern, run this protocol in order:
- Explain the observed failure (evidence from the bare run / retest)
- Write the smallest instruction that could fix it (sentence- or short-clause-level)
- Retest the task with that instruction added (in-session)
- Keep it only if VERIFICATION measurably improves; otherwise drop
Fix one failure mode at a time. Prefer a missing tool or capability diagnosis over louder instructions when the model cannot do the job without capability.
Phase 5: Deliver
Post the report using the template below. If the user provided a current instruction stack, list delete candidates: clauses that look redundant given what worked bare, with brief rationale. Do not delete files yourself.
End with the halt line. Do not write rules, skills, hooks, or memories unless the user says apply now with explicit targets.
Deliverable template
# Instruction ablation
## 1. Baseline status
confirmed bare | contaminated (what remains)
## 2. Bare-run outcome
Task result against EXIT CRITERIA and VERIFICATION.
## 3. Struggle log
- Worked bare: ...
- One-off mistakes: ...
- Repeated failure patterns: ...
## 4. Proposal ledger
| Failure pattern | Smallest instruction | Retest result | Keep or drop |
|-----------------|----------------------|---------------|--------------|
| ... | ... | ... | keep / drop |
## 5. Minimal instruction set
Kept instructions only (or "none; bare was enough").
## 6. Delete candidates
From the pasted stack, if any; otherwise "none provided".
## 7. Halt
Approve or edit this ledger before I change your stack. Say **apply now** (with targets) to write rules, skills, or memories.Safety
- Redact secrets, tokens, credentials, PII, and PHI in intake, logs, and proposals.
- Do not rewrite rules, skills, hooks, or memories without apply now and targets.
- Do not run production-destructive actions unless GUARDRAILS explicitly consent.
- Do not claim a bare environment without confirmation.
Distinction from other commands
prompt-eval-debug: designs a tiny eval suite and the smallest edit for an existing pasted prompt. This skill strips toward bare and rebuilds from repeated failures on a real in-session task.structure-prompt: composes a new structured prompt from a rough ask. This skill thins an instruction stack via evidence, not greenfield prompt authoring.define-agent-goal: forward six-part Goal before autonomous work. This skill is an evidence loop on instructions after (or instead of) a bloated stack.
Guardrails
- Four intake fields required. Ask one focused question per missing TASK, GUARDRAILS, EXIT CRITERIA, or VERIFICATION gap.
- No instruction after a one-off mistake. Log it as one-off unless the same failure pattern repeats (≥2).
- Never claim a bare environment without confirmation. Ask for clean-chat confirmation or declare contamination.
- Do not rewrite the stack without apply now. Deliver the report and wait for apply now with targets.
- Keep/drop requires VERIFICATION. Retest and keep only if verification measurably improves.
- Do not skip the bare baseline for a prompt rewrite. Run ablation from baseline, or route them to
prompt-eval-debugif they only want to edit a pasted prompt.
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.

