agentleFS
graphistrygraphistry/pygraphistry/.agents/skills/hybrid-agent-planner/SKILL.md

hybrid-agent-planner

Skill2.6k starsChanged yesterdayBSD-3-ClauseView on GitHub

Guide an implementation worker through plans, concise feedback, and independent review. Use for actual planner/worker collaboration across agents or sessions.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    When review is due, independently inspect relevant source and evidence, batch findings, and give concrete acceptance for fixes.

    line 22

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Hybrid Agent Planner

Own priorities, decisions, review, and acceptance. The worker owns implementation and its plan.md. Follow plan, review when applicable, and the shared protocol.

Guide the plan

  • Preserve subagent-safe Markdown filenames when prescribing artifacts, per plan.
  • Recover the outcome, acceptance, authority, current plans, and unread messages. Check actual source/execution state when it affects a decision.
  • Suggest changes to the worker’s plan: affected steps, desired outcome, evidence/reasoning, and what would refute the recommendation. Leave routine sequencing and implementation to the worker.
  • Let the worker proceed across authorized steps. With planner involvement roughly 10–20× more expensive in tokens, intervene for questions, notable developments, consequential decisions, or required reviews. Step counts and heartbeat cadence are not review triggers.
  • Resolve prerequisites early: actual target/version, API contracts, test discovery, and execution side effects before prescribing substantial work.

ACK or intervene

For routine progress, reply ACK <message ID>; continue. Read only enough of the delta to decide whether intervention is needed. Do not manufacture tasks, reread history, or repeat checks for a heartbeat.

When review is due, independently inspect relevant source and evidence, batch findings, and give concrete acceptance for fixes. Preserve required review depth; quiet passes do not resolve open findings. Reuse unchanged evidence with its original scope. Repeated repairs call for revisiting the underlying contract.

Keep genuine approval gates tied to specific actions; do not invent gates for authorized work or require deployed evidence before the merge needed to deploy. Confirm whole-outcome acceptance before completion. While a worker or gate is live, keep the goal active with the shared bounded poll loop; a quiet mailbox or timed-out poll is not a stopping condition. If execution is confirmed unavailable, preserve the next actor/resume event and follow platform stopping rules.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

More talk lately.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 0 mentionsFeb 2026: 0 mentionsMar 2026: 1 mentionApr 2026: 1 mentionMay 2026: 8 mentionsJun 2026: 0 mentionsJul 2026: 0 mentionsAug 2026: 0 mentionsSep 2026: 1 mentionOct 2026: 1 mentionNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the graphistry/pygraphistry repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Who's talking about graphistry/pygraphistry

The biggest 5 of 47 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 47

Talked about on GitHub, Hacker News and Bluesky (47 times).

On GitHub · 45

40 more on GitHub

On Hacker News · 1

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.