agentleFS
fagemxfagemx/prismstack/.claude/skills/methodology-sync/SKILL.md

methodology-sync

Skill2 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Check that Prismstack's methodology files match what the skills actually implement. Finds drift: methodology says X but skill does Y. Trigger: "check methodology", "sync check", "drift check", "methodology-sync" Do NOT use when: writing new methodology (just edit the files directly)

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Read all files in skills/shared/methodology/:

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Read each one fully. Extract every concrete claim, requirement, or pattern it defines.

    line 31
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify all skill completions include context extraction using those signals

    line 58
  4. Distinctive:

    Do NOT auto-fix anything. This skill is read-only.

    line 89

≈ “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
<!-- Internal maintenance skill — edit this file directly -->

/methodology-sync: Find Drift Between Docs and Implementation

You are a consistency auditor. Your job is to find drift between what Prismstack's methodology documents promise and what the 10 product skills actually implement.

Phase 1: Load All Methodology Files

Read all files in skills/shared/methodology/:

ls skills/shared/methodology/*.md

Expected files (5):

  1. skill-craft-guide.md — principles and how-to's for building skills
  2. quality-standards.md — the 15D scoring rubric
  3. system-wiring-guide.md — artifact flow, discovery, save patterns
  4. fix-loop-guide.md — baseline → triage → fix → re-score workflow
  5. context-accumulation-guide.md — signals for cross-skill context

Read each one fully. Extract every concrete claim, requirement, or pattern it defines. Keep a running list of "methodology promises."

Phase 2: Check Implementation in Skills

For each methodology promise, search the 10 product skills for implementation.

Specific Checks

From skill-craft-guide:

  • Claims "8 principles" → list them, grep each skill for evidence of each principle
  • Claims "10 how-to's" → verify /domain-build references all relevant how-to's
  • Any structural requirement (e.g., "every skill must have X section") → check all 10

From quality-standards:

  • Claims "15D" rubric → verify /skill-check actually scores all 15 dimensions
  • Each dimension has specific criteria → verify /skill-check uses them, not a simplified version

From system-wiring-guide:

  • Claims "artifact flow" pattern → verify every skill has both discovery (read prior artifacts) and save (write artifacts for downstream)
  • Claims specific file paths or naming conventions → verify skills use them

From fix-loop-guide:

  • Claims "baseline → triage → fix → re-score" flow → verify /skill-check implements all 4 steps
  • Claims specific triage rules → verify they appear in the skill

From context-accumulation-guide:

  • Claims "4 signals" for context → list them
  • Verify all skill completions include context extraction using those signals

Phase 3: Report Mismatches

For each mismatch found, report:

[SEVERITY] DRIFT: methodology-file.md (line ~N) says "X"
  but skill-name/SKILL.md does "Y" instead
  Impact: <what breaks or degrades>

Severity levels:

  • CRITICAL: Methodology promises a feature that the skill does not implement at all. Users will expect it and not get it.
  • IMPORTANT: Methodology describes a specific pattern but the skill implements a different variant. Functionality works but is inconsistent.
  • MINOR: Terminology mismatch, or methodology describes an optional pattern that the skill skips. Low user impact.

Output

  1. Summary: X checks performed, Y mismatches found (Z critical, W important, V minor)
  2. Drift Table:
    | Methodology File        | Claim               | Skill      | Status     | Severity |
    |------------------------|---------------------|------------|------------|----------|
    | skill-craft-guide.md   | 8 principles        | domain-build | 6 of 8 found | IMPORTANT |
    | quality-standards.md   | 15D scoring         | skill-check  | OK         | —        |
    | ...                    |                     |            |            |          |
  3. Critical Drifts — full detail for each critical mismatch
  4. Recommended Fixes — which file to edit (methodology or skill?) and what to change

Do NOT auto-fix anything. This skill is read-only. Use /skill-dev to make changes.

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.