agentleFS
gannonhgannonh/kata-code/.agents/skills/thermo-run/SKILL.md

thermo-run

Skill1 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub

Launch both thermo-nuclear review subagents in parallel, then synthesize their findings. Use for thermos, double thermo review, or combined bug/security and code-quality branch audits.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are 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.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run the two thermo review passes as async background subagents in parallel, then synthesize their results.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    After both finish, synthesize the results with findings first, deduplicated across reviewers.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    If individual background summaries are already visible to the user, do not restate them wholesale.

    line 21

≈ “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

Thermos

Run the two thermo review passes as async background subagents in parallel, then synthesize their results.

Workflow

  1. Determine the review scope from the user request, PR, current branch, or relevant changed files.
  2. Gather the diff and any file/context excerpts needed for reviewers to evaluate the change without guessing.
  3. Launch both subagents in parallel:
    • /skill:thermo-nuclear-review for bugs, breakages, security, devex regressions, feature-flag leaks, and other branch-audit risks.
    • /skill:thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review for maintainability, structure, file-size growth, spaghetti, abstractions, and codebase-health risks.
  4. Pass each subagent the same scoped diff/file context and ask it to return prioritized findings with file references and evidence.
  5. After both finish, synthesize the results with findings first, deduplicated across reviewers. Weight overlapping findings more heavily, resolve disagreements with your own judgment, and keep summaries brief.

If individual background summaries are already visible to the user, do not restate them wholesale. Surface the unified verdict, the highest-signal findings, and any remaining uncertainty.

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.