self-critique
Skill4 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Before claiming "done / fixed / tests pass", run smelltest's model-free structural kernel on your own output — re-grading the claim against the actual git diff (substantive added lines, test-tampering) instead of trusting your sense of completion. Use whenever you are about to write "done", "implemented", "fixed", or "tests pass".
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jaskirat1616/grok-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jfkconstruct/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 22same name
- jfkconstruct/claude-skills★ 0same 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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Distinctive: line 35
Never edit tests to pass — fix the code.
≈ “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.
Files
Self-critique before you claim "done"
Your sense that it's finished is systematically overconfident. Re-grade the claim against the structure of what actually changed.
Run the kernel on yourself
Easiest — let the extractor build the evidence from the transcript + git:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/src/cli.ts" --latestOr pipe a hand-built evidence object (the diff is parsed into hunks — the kernel counts substantive added lines itself):
{ "finalMessage": "<your about-to-send message>",
"diff": { "available": true, "isEmpty": false, "filesTouched": ["src/x.ts"],
"hunks": [{ "file": "src/x.ts", "addedLines": ["..."], "removedLines": [] }] },
"scope": { "filesRead": ["src/x.ts"], "filesEdited": ["src/x.ts"] } }echo '<evidence>' | node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/src/cli.ts" --stdin
Act on the verdict
- WARN
done.no_substance→ you claimed completion but the diff added 0 substantive lines (comment/stub/import don't count). Make the real change, then re-run. - WARN
tests.tampered→ the diff weakened the test suite under a "tests pass" claim. Never edit tests to pass — fix the code. - note
scope.blind_edit→ say it out loud — you edited a file you never read. - No flags → say "structural checks did not flag this", never "verified". A self-graded claim never earns a check.
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.

