agentleFS
githubnextgithubnext/chopin/skills/local-investigations/SKILL.md

local-investigations

Skill616 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub

Execute an owner-authorized Chopin investigation using the run-scoped MCP tools and return captured evidence for native views.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 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.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read read_investigation before acting.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Use your normal repository instructions and configured tools.

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    Use tables, metric comparisons, bars or lines from the supplied schema.

    line 26
  4. Very specific:

    Call submit_investigation_result.

    line 28
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not claim a decision was accepted or start another investigation yourself.

    line 30

≈ “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

Local investigations

A person proposes an investigation by typing / on a document line and choosing Investigate; its card sits at that place in the document. Someone selects Run on the card, which starts this run on their own local agent. A failed or stopped card's Retry reuses the same investigation id.

  1. Read read_investigation before acting. Its sealed brief, source context and capability schema are authoritative for this run.
  2. Use your normal repository instructions and configured tools. Keep the work within the authorized objective. State blockers rather than inventing access, results or a different source revision.
  3. For performance comparisons, check correctness and measure under comparable conditions. Record units, samples, warm-up and aggregation. Distinguish observed, derived, simulated and qualitative data.
  4. Return a short report, led by a # heading that names the finding (it becomes the title of the published child document), typed datasets, supported native view mappings and useful bounded text evidence. All required columns must be present in every row; nullable values are explicit and are not zero. Preserve source and capture provenance. Never include service credentials or indiscriminate transcripts.
  5. Use tables, metric comparisons, bars or lines from the supplied schema. Do not generate frontend applications, executable chart configuration or live URLs.
  6. Call submit_investigation_result. Repair validation failures and submit a valid candidate before finishing the turn. The connector handles durable publication. Do not claim a decision was accepted or start another investigation yourself.

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.