thermos
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.
5 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- christofferbergj/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ngcto/oh-my-pstacktheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- rockcookies/skillsedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- ahonn/dotfilesword for word, first seen Sep 10, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- ahonn/dotfiles★ 62100% same
- aaaxn/skills★ 2100% same
Edited · 1
- rockcookies/skills★ 1100% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- christofferbergj/agent-skills★ 1same name
- ngcto/oh-my-pstack★ 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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- .cursor/rules/global.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kata-code-browser.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/lifecycle.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/open-pstack-models.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/ponytail.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/sub-agents.mdcCursor rule
- 1passwordSkill
- astra-orchestratorSkill
- eli5Skill
- readmeSkill
- rebase-kata-upstreamSkill
- release-testflightSkill
- resolve-reviewsSkill
- show-meSkill
- test-t3-appSkill
- test-t3-mobileSkill
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewSkill
- thermo-nuclear-reviewSkill
- thermo-runSkill
- unslopSkill
- verify-katacodeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 1 is common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
1
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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 9
Run the two thermo review passes as async background subagents in parallel, then synthesize their results.
- Distinctive: line 19
After both finish, synthesize the results with findings first, deduplicated across reviewers.
- Common: line 21
If individual background summaries are already visible to the user, do not restate them wholesale.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Thermos
Run the two thermo review passes as async background subagents in parallel, then synthesize their results.
Workflow
- Determine the review scope from the user request, PR, current branch, or relevant changed files.
- Gather the diff and any file/context excerpts needed for reviewers to evaluate the change without guessing.
- Launch both subagents in the same message with
run_in_background: true:subagent_type: "thermo-nuclear-review-subagent"for bugs, breakages, security, devex regressions, feature-flag leaks, and other branch-audit risks.subagent_type: "thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent"for maintainability, structure, file-size growth, spaghetti, abstractions, and codebase-health risks.
- Pass each subagent the same scoped diff/file context and ask it to return prioritized findings with file references and evidence.
- 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.
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.