agentleFS
fullstackhousefullstackhouse/skills/AGENTS.md

skills

AGENTS.md1 starsChanged 59 days agoMITView on GitHub

This repo is a Claude Code plugin (fsh) and a single-plugin marketplace (fullstackhouse-skills). It contains no application code — the deliverable is the skills themselves, in skills/<name>/SKILL.md (+ optional scripts/, templates/, references/). Any change under skills/** or .claude-plugin/** MUST bump version in .claude-plugin/plugin.json in the same PR. Do it as part of the edit, not as an afterthought at PR time. Why: Claude Code decides whether an installed plugin is up to date by comparing the version string, not the…

The file

Files
AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md

This repo is a Claude Code plugin (fsh) and a single-plugin marketplace (fullstackhouse-skills). It contains no application code — the deliverable is the skills themselves, in skills/<name>/SKILL.md (+ optional scripts/, templates/, references/).

Bump the version — this is not optional

Any change under skills/** or .claude-plugin/** MUST bump version in .claude-plugin/plugin.json in the same PR. Do it as part of the edit, not as an afterthought at PR time.

Why: Claude Code decides whether an installed plugin is up to date by comparing the version string, not the git SHA. autoUpdate refreshes the marketplace listing, but an existing install of fsh@0.1.0 stays frozen at 0.1.0 until the version changes. This repo already hit it — three skills (design-explore, design-polish, project-status) merged without a bump and were invisible to everyone who had installed earlier. The skills were on main and still nobody had them.

  • patch — wording/fix-only edits to an existing skill.
  • minor — a new skill, or a new capability in an existing one.
  • major — a breaking change to a skill's contract or to the profile knobs.
  • One bump per PR is enough. Don't bump per-commit.
  • Editing only README.md / AGENTS.md / LICENSE / .github/** needs no bump.

CI enforces this (.github/workflows/version-check.yml): a PR touching skills/** or .claude-plugin/** fails unless version is strictly above the base branch's. Treat CI as the backstop, not the reminder.

New skill? Also add a row to the README's skill table.

Client confidentiality

Anything a skill publishes outside FSH — a PR to a repo we don't own, a public diff or commit message, a status in a client's Slack — must carry no non-public detail of any FSH client: names, staff, repo names, local paths, internal spec/ticket IDs, name-carrying identifiers (module or env-var prefixes, service names), infrastructure, or their data. Only exception: a detail already public in the client's own material, verified rather than assumed.

The trap is provenance. "Upstreams client X's field-proven module" reads as generous engineering and leaks a client name into a permanent public record. Keep the engineering claim, drop the address: "upstreams a pattern already running in production downstream."

The gate lives in each skill that publishes — upstream-pr, deliver, pr-polish, project-status, feedback-triage, and review-loop (whose PR-attached sources post thread replies). Each carries its own copy so a single-skill symlink install still enforces it: when you edit one copy, sync the others.

Conventions

  • Skills are agent-facing procedures: concise, imperative, exact commands, explicit decision points. Distill — don't paste docs verbatim.
  • Most skills are repo-agnostic: derive project specifics at runtime from the consuming repo's CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / package.json, or from its ## Skill profile section. Don't hardcode a client's paths, commands, or policy.
  • Bundled scripts/ are POSIX sh/bash, idempotent, safe to re-run.
  • Bundled templates/ use {{PLACEHOLDER}} tokens the skill substitutes.
  • A skill's description: frontmatter is its only trigger — it must say when to use the skill, not just what it does.

See README.md for install, the skill table, and the Skill profile knobs.

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.