setup-repo
Skill4 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub
Fully configure this repo for a specific project. Asks 3 targeted questions, reads the codebase, then writes all agent instruction files in place — replacing every [FILL:] marker across all 32 files. Run immediately after cloning the template.
12 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- protokol11/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mblauberg/provenanttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- etr/groundworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPTtheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- p-chan/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- p-chan/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use implement.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Hugging FaceSkillimplement
Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 12
- Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT★ 188ksame name
- etr/groundwork★ 45same name
- jpoindexter/theft-kit★ 1same name
- marinvch/Cortex★ 1same name
- mblauberg/provenant★ 1same name
- nhhthong/skills★ 1same name
- protokol11/skills★ 1same name
- Sassy-Dog/skills★ 1same name
- vincenzo345/skills★ 1same name
- p-chan/agent-skills★ 0same name
2 more not listed
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 repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- architecture-changeSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- doc-auditSkill
- feature-deliverySkill
- find-skillsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- hotfixSkill
- jules-tasksSkill
- qa-auditSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- architecture-changeSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- doc-auditSkill
- feature-deliverySkill
- find-skillsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- hotfixSkill
- jules-tasksSkill
- qa-auditSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- setup-repoSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 17
When basic fills were done manually but deeper fills remain
- Distinctive: line 18
When onboarding an existing codebase onto this template
- Distinctive: line 47
Before reading a single file, ask the user these questions.
- Distinctive: line 61
Wait for all three answers before proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 67
Read the codebase to establish these values:
- Distinctive: line 109
Section deletion rule: If a section has no applicable content, delete it entirely.
- Distinctive: line 241
If it can be filled from codebase facts: fill it now
- Distinctive: line 242
If it requires user input: ask the user directly
- Distinctive: line 243
If it is in a section that doesn't apply: delete the section
- Distinctive: line 251
After completing all phases, output:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Setup Repo
Overview
This skill produces a fully configured repo with zero remaining [FILL:] markers. It covers all 32 files that contain markers — not just the primary instruction files — and writes them directly when run in Claude Code.
Announce at start: "I'm using the setup-repo skill. I'll ask you 3 quick questions, then read the codebase and write all instruction files."
When to Use
- Immediately after cloning this template into a new project
- When basic fills were done manually but deeper fills remain
- When onboarding an existing codebase onto this template
When NOT to Use
- Repo already fully set up (verify:
grep -rn "\[FILL:" . --include="*.md"returns nothing outside docs) - You only need to update one specific file — edit it directly instead
Execution Modes
Mode A — Claude Code (preferred)
Claude Code has direct file access. The skill reads files, gathers facts, writes every file in place, activates git hooks, and validates. No copy-pasting required.
Mode B — Other agents
Generate a repo bundle first:
npx repomix # produces repomix-output.xml (already configured)Attach repomix-output.xml to your chat. The skill outputs filled content tiered by priority — paste and apply Tier 1 before proceeding to Tier 2.
Phase 0 — Ask 3 Questions
Before reading a single file, ask the user these questions. Their answers fill things no codebase analysis can determine:
Question 1 — Users & deployment context:
"Who are the primary users of this project and what is the deployment environment?" (e.g. "Internal logistics staff via a React dashboard", "Public API consumers", "iOS/Android WebView")
Question 2 — Immutable contract:
"Are there any externally-bound IDs, stored data schemas, or API versions that MUST NEVER change — even across refactors?" (If yes, list them. If no, answer "none" — the Immutable Contract section will be deleted.)
Question 3 — Extra prohibitions:
"Is there anything agents should never do that won't be obvious from reading the code?" (e.g. "Never modify the payments module without a second review", "Never add browser APIs — this runs in a Node.js CLI")
Wait for all three answers before proceeding.
Phase 1 — Gather Project Facts
Read the codebase to establish these values:
| Fact | Where to look |
| Project name | package.json name, directory name, README.md H1 |
| Description | package.json description, README.md intro paragraph |
| Tech stack | package.json dependencies/devDependencies, file extensions, import patterns |
| Test command | package.json scripts.test, Makefile, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml |
| Lint command | package.json scripts.lint, .eslintrc*, .pre-commit-config.yaml |
| Build command | package.json scripts.build, Makefile, Dockerfile |
| Architectural constraints | .githooks/, CI workflows, patterns repeated across source files |
| Prohibitions | ESLint/linter rules, code comments flagging bad patterns |
| File structure | Top-level dirs, entry points, key config files agents need to navigate |
| Primary source file | Entry point (used in qa-audit and doc-audit skills) |
| Immutable IDs | Cross-referenced values, stored schemas (supplement with Question 2 answer) |
Also run:
grep -rn "\[FILL:" . --include="*.md" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.yml" --include="*.cursorrules" | grep -v ".git/"This gives you the exact list of files and line numbers to process.
Phase 2 — Generate and Write (Tiered)
Process files in tier order. In Mode A, write each file in place using Edit/Write tools. In Mode B, output each tier's content before starting the next.
Fill quality rules — apply to every marker
| Rule | Pass condition |
| Specific | Includes file paths, function names, or exact patterns — never vague intent |
| Evidence-based | Only write what you found in the repo or user answers — never guess |
| Actionable | An agent can follow this rule without further clarification |
| Not code-inferable | Only constraints that agents cannot figure out by reading source |
Good: "No ORM — all DB queries in src/db/query.ts via raw SQL"
Bad: "Use the database correctly"
Section deletion rule: If a section has no applicable content, delete it entirely. Key conditional sections:
## Immutable Contract→ delete if Question 2 answer was "none"## Layout Constraints→ delete if not a UI/mobile project## [FILL: Language/Framework-Specific Rules]→ replace heading + add stack-specific rules, or delete section if none apply
Tier 1 — Essential (agents read these every session)
These 5 files are loaded on every agent conversation. Fill them first.
1. CLAUDE.md
Fill: project name + description + tech stack (one line), 2 constraints, 2 prohibitions, test/lint/build commands, after-every-change steps.
2. AGENTS.md
Fill: project overview, 3 architectural constraints, file structure block (generate from actual top-level dirs and entry points — use text code block), 2 coding rules, immutable contract (or delete section), test command, verification steps, any project-specific doc links.
3. GEMINI.md
Same structure as CLAUDE.md — fill identically.
4. .github/copilot-instructions.md
Fill: project name + description + tech stack + deployment context (from Question 1), 2 always-do rules, 3 never-do prohibitions (include user answer from Question 3), key files table (3–5 rows: entry point, main config, test entry, key utility), any doc links.
5. .cursorrules
Fill: test command (one line).
Tier 2 — Important (quality gates, PR reviews, prompts)
6. .claude/agents/qa-reviewer.md
Fill: 2 project-specific review rules (derive from linting config, architectural constraints, or user answers).
7. .claude/rules/coding-standards.md
Fill: 3 architectural constraints, language/framework-specific rules section heading + 2–4 rules derived from stack, 2 project rules, immutable contract reference (or delete).
Then copy this file's content verbatim to:
.agent/rules/coding-standards.md(change frontmattertrigger: always— keep it).kilocode/rules/coding-standards.md
8–9. .agent/rules/coding-standards.md and .kilocode/rules/coding-standards.md
Apply the copy from step 7.
10. .github/pull_request_template.md
Fill: doc paths section (list the 2–3 key docs agents should verify are up to date after every change).
11. .github/prompts/new-feature.prompt.md
Fill: 2 planning constraints (derive from tech stack constraints — e.g. "This is achievable with [stack] — no [forbidden pattern]").
12. .github/prompts/review-changes.prompt.md
Fill: 2 project-specific review checks (derive from linting rules, architectural constraints).
13. .github/instructions/docs.instructions.md
Fill: additional doc paths relevant to the project (entry point docs, API docs, engineering playbook if present).
14. .github/instructions/qa-audit.instructions.md
Fill: main source file path (entry point), 3 project-specific audit checks (security, rule compliance, robustness — derive from codebase patterns).
Tier 3 — Skill files (fill once, sync to 3 directories)
Generate filled content for .claude/skills/qa-audit/SKILL.md and .claude/skills/doc-audit/SKILL.md, then copy each to the parallel directories.
15. .claude/skills/qa-audit/SKILL.md
Fill: main source file name, 1 project-specific security check, 2 rule compliance checks (from linting/architecture), 1 race condition check, 1 error propagation check, 1 key value that must match across rule files, any additional rule files beyond the defaults.
Then copy to:
.agents/skills/qa-audit/SKILL.md.agent/skills/qa-audit/SKILL.md
16. .claude/skills/doc-audit/SKILL.md
Fill: project-specific doc references, key values to verify for drift, any custom audit scripts.
Then copy to:
.agents/skills/doc-audit/SKILL.md.agent/skills/doc-audit/SKILL.md
Tier 4 — Workflows (complex — fill best-effort, flag unclear markers)
These workflows have deep project-specific content. Fill what can be determined from the codebase; flag any marker you cannot fill confidently with [REVIEW: <reason>] instead of leaving [FILL:].
17. .agent/workflows/qa-audit.md (35 markers)
Fill: test command, main source file, zone definitions (derive from file structure), rule checks (from architecture), config file list, security checks, robustness checks, drift checks.
18. .agent/workflows/pr-analysis.md (17 markers)
Fill: project-specific PR checks, rule file references, security patterns to scan for.
19. .agent/workflows/feature-delivery.md (7 markers)
Fill: implementation rules, platform constraints, docs to update after every feature.
20. .agent/workflows/doc-audit.md (6 markers)
Fill: doc structure, content descriptions, key drift points, any custom audit scripts.
21. .agent/workflows/architecture-change.md (6 markers)
Fill: runtime baseline, environment checks, docs affected by architecture changes.
22. .agent/workflows/release-readiness.md (5 markers)
Fill: baseline validation steps, compatibility checks, docs to verify before release.
23. .agent/workflows/post-merge-analysis.md (3 markers)
Fill: syntax checks, config reference doc path.
Phase 3 — Activate Git Hooks (Mode A only)
git config core.hooksPath .githooks
chmod +x .githooks/pre-commit .githooks/commit-msgPhase 4 — Validate
Run:
grep -rn "\[FILL:" . --include="*.md" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.yml" --include="*.cursorrules" \
| grep -v ".git/" \
| grep -v "README.md" \
| grep -v "CHANGELOG.md" \
| grep -v "docs/CUSTOMIZATION-GUIDE.md" \
| grep -v "docs/SKILLS-CATALOG.md"If output is empty — setup is complete. Commit with:
git add -A && git commit -m "chore: configure repo from template via /setup-repo"If markers remain — list each with file + line. For each:
- If it can be filled from codebase facts: fill it now
- If it requires user input: ask the user directly
- If it is in a section that doesn't apply: delete the section
Repeat validation until clean.
Summary Output
After completing all phases, output:
## Setup Complete
- Files written: <count>
- [FILL:] markers resolved: <count>
- [REVIEW:] markers flagged for manual review: <count> (list them)
- Sections deleted (not applicable): <list>
- Git hooks: activated ✓ / skipped (Mode B — activate manually)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.

