open-source-review
Skill4 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review a repository's readiness to be published as open source and report findings with evidence. Use before making a repository public, before a first public release, when publishing a plugin or skill package to a marketplace, when asked whether a repository is safe or ready to open source, or when checking a public repository's settings (branch and tag protection, secret scanning, vulnerability reporting).
- Reads credentials
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sogud/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- sogud/skills★ 1same 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 repository48 other files it gives its agents.
- rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/delegate/references/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- advisorSkill
- afkSkill
- askSkill
- brbSkill
- checksSkill
- coding-routerSkill
- commit-messagesSkill
- delegateSkill
- fnl-advisorSkill
- fnl-afkSkill
- fnl-askSkill
- fnl-brbSkill
- fnl-checksSkill
- fnl-coding-routerSkill
- fnl-commit-messagesSkill
- fnl-delegateSkill
- fnl-gtgSkill
- fnl-handoffSkill
- fnl-helpSkill
- fnl-open-source-reviewSkill
- fnl-pauseSkill
- fnl-plugin-packagingSkill
- fnl-restore-pointSkill
- fnl-review-gateSkill
- fnl-security-review-gateSkill
- fnl-session-hygieneSkill
- fnl-setupSkill
- fnl-statusSkill
- fnl-updateSkill
- fnl-versioningSkill
- gtgSkill
- handoffSkill
- helpSkill
- pauseSkill
- plugin-packagingSkill
- restore-pointSkill
- review-gateSkill
- security-review-gateSkill
- session-hygieneSkill
- setupSkill
- shapeSkill
- statusSkill
- tidySkill
- updateSkill
- versioningSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 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.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 28
No real .env files, credentials, keys, cookies, transcripts, customer data or personal data, in the tree or the history.
- Distinctive: line 33
No employer, customer or partner names, internal hostnames, private URLs, ticket links or internal tool names.
- Very specific: line 34
No absolute paths from a personal machine (/Users/<name>/, /home/<name>/, C:\Users\), usernames or email addresses beyond the published …
- Very specific: line 41
No build or cache output, virtualenvs, node_modules, OS files (.DS_Store, Thumbs.db), editor folders, scratch output or logs.
- Distinctive: line 42
No symlinks out of the repository, no submodules or LFS pointers the package depends on, no file names that collide by case or are invalid …
- Distinctive: line 49
Read them from the forge, then mark every item in references/repository-settings.md: branch and tag protection, secret scanning, dependency …
- Distinctive: line 62
When the repository ships a plugin or skills, mark every item in references/plugin-packages.md: validators on a fresh clone, the target …
≈ “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
Open source review
A read-only review: it finds and reports, it does not publish. Fixes, history rewrites, visibility changes and releases each need the owner's explicit authority. After a repository is public, run it again before each MINOR release and whenever SECURITY.md, CI or the repository settings change; a patch release does not need one.
1. Fix the scope
Name the repository, the exact commit, and what will become public: the working tree, the full git history, release archives, or a packaged plugin. History counts unless the owner will publish a fresh history; say which. Done when the scope line is written in the report.
2. Run every check
Mark each item PASS, FAIL, N/A (with why) or BLOCKED (with what is missing), and attach evidence: the command and its output, or the file and line. A tool that is not installed is BLOCKED, not PASS, unless the check names a fallback; a fallback result names the method it used.
License
- A
LICENSEfile at the root, and the same SPDX id in every manifest (package.json, plugin manifests,pyproject.toml). - Notices for vendored or copied third-party code, with their original licenses kept.
- Dependency licenses are compatible with the project license.
Secrets and private data
- Recommend a
security-auditrun from cloudflare/security-audit-skill before the first public release of code that runs (services, CLIs, plugins with scripts or hooks); report whether one ran and its verdicts. - Scan the full history and the working tree for secrets:
gitleaks git .andgitleaks dir .(detectis deprecated),trufflehog git file://., orgit log -pwith targeted patterns when no scanner is installed. Report the file and commit, never the secret's value. Install nothing yourself, but strongly recommend that the user installs a scanner when none is present: namegitleaksortrufflehogwith its install command, and say that thegit log -pfallback covers less. - No real
.envfiles, credentials, keys, cookies, transcripts, customer data or personal data, in the tree or the history. - A leaked secret is a stop: tell the owner so it can be rotated. Removing it from the tree does not remove it from history.
Internal leaks
- No employer, customer or partner names, internal hostnames, private URLs, ticket links or internal tool names.
- No absolute paths from a personal machine (
/Users/<name>/,/home/<name>/,C:\Users\), usernames or email addresses beyond the published maintainer contact. - Agent context files (
AGENTS.md,CLAUDE.md) hold only what contributors need; personal context lives in an untracked local file. - Examples and fixtures use synthetic names and data.
Clean payload
git ls-files -ci --exclude-standardis empty: no ignored file is still tracked.- No build or cache output, virtualenvs,
node_modules, OS files (.DS_Store,Thumbs.db), editor folders, scratch output or logs. - No symlinks out of the repository, no submodules or LFS pointers the package depends on, no file names that collide by case or are invalid on Windows or macOS.
- Large files are justified; binaries are justified and their source is published.
Community files
Mark every item in references/community-files.md: README, CONTRIBUTING, code of conduct, SECURITY, changelog and templates, and docs that match what ships.
Repository settings
Read them from the forge, then mark every item in references/repository-settings.md: branch and tag protection, secret scanning, dependency alerts, vulnerability reporting, merge, Actions and listing settings, and which of them block a ready verdict.
Identity and versions
- One name across repository, package, manifests, display names and install commands. URLs resolve and point at the same owner.
- Versions agree across every manifest; the changelog's latest release matches them, or between releases its
Unreleasedsection targets the-devversion; the single source of truth is named (versioning).
Data flow and privacy
- State what data the software reads, where it sends it, what it stores and who can delete it, including optional services. A
PRIVACY.mdis needed when data leaves the user's machine. - Behavior that runs, fetches or sends anything is documented, and dependencies are pinned.
Plugin and skill packages
When the repository ships a plugin or skills, mark every item in references/plugin-packages.md: validators on a fresh clone, the target directory's own checks, skill triggers and listing assets.
3. Report
A table per group with status and evidence, then the FAIL and BLOCKED items ordered by severity: secrets and private data first, then internal leaks, license, payload, everything else. For each, the smallest fix and whether it needs the owner's authority (history rewrite, visibility change, repository settings, publishing). List every item marked N/A until publishing as a recheck after the visibility change, so a ready verdict does not hide it. End with a one-line verdict: ready, ready after fixes, or not ready. A BLOCKED item in secrets and private data, internal leaks or license caps the verdict at not ready, naming the group that could not be checked, because what was not scanned cannot be called clean.
Done when every item above and in each reference it links has a status and every FAIL has a fix.
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.

