suggestions
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the friend wants to review pending suggestions: rare, high-stakes items a producer (retrospective, promotion, doctrine, wiki-health) has raised for explicit approve/reject — never auto-applied. Triggers on the /ren:suggestions slash command. The single interactive decide surface over lib.suggestions' durable store (Task 14); this is where an accepted decision actually becomes a write.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jaydubya818/ClaudeClaw-Mission-Controltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Bappoz/My-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 15, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- Bappoz/My-Claude-Skills★ 1same name
- jaydubya818/ClaudeClaw-Mission-Control★ 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.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- backupSkill
- bootstrap-projectSkill
- code-mapSkill
- distillSkill
- doctorSkill
- ingest-projectSkill
- installSkill
- interviewSkill
- metric-watchSkill
- pinSkill
- recallSkill
- rememberSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- routine-initSkill
- updateSkill
- wiki-healthSkill
- wiki-migrationSkill
- wrapSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 66
If it returns "No pending suggestions.", say so and stop — nothing else to do.
- Distinctive: line 73
Ask the friend to Approve or Reject (AskUserQuestion, or plain chat if unavailable).
- Distinctive: line 91
Never batch-apply: Never apply a suggestion without an explicit per-item answer from the friend.
≈ “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
suggestions
The single interactive approve/reject surface over lib.suggestions'
durable store (Task 14). Suggestions are RARE AND HIGH-STAKES by design
(spec §1.2) — this is the only place a suggestion's payload actually gets
applied. lib.suggestions.decide itself is a pure state transition; this
skill's accept() is what turns an "accepted" decision into a real write.
When to use this skill
- Friend invokes
/ren:suggestions— review whatever's pending - A producer (retrospective, promotion, doctrine, wiki-health) just raised a new suggestion and the friend wants to act on it now rather than later
When NOT to use this skill
- The friend wants to record something new mid-session →
/ren:pin - The friend wants a coherence sweep, not a decision queue →
/ren:wiki-health
Behavior
- Call
skills.suggestions.lib.render_list(). - If it returns
"No pending suggestions.", say so and stop — nothing else to do. - Otherwise walk the pending suggestions ONE AT A TIME, in the order
render_list()returned them (oldest first):- Show
render_suggestion(s)for the current suggestion — title, rationale, producer, and (forpage_writesuggestions) a content preview. - Ask the friend to Approve or Reject (AskUserQuestion, or plain chat if unavailable). Get an explicit per-item answer — never assume, never infer from silence.
- On approve: call
skills.suggestions.lib.accept(sid, session). Report what happened from the returned{"sid", "applied", "detail"}— ifappliedisFalse, say so and showdetail(e.g. a duplicate-content no-op, or the two pages + evidence for areview_contradictionsuggestion the friend now reconciles conversationally). The result also carries"decision_recorded"(True/False) on every path that followed an apply attempt — absent only on the up-front already-decided check, so use.get("decision_recorded"). If it'sFalse, the change may already have landed (appliedcan still beTrue) but the decision itself wasn't recorded — the suggestion stays pending and will be offered again; mention that to the friend rather than treating it as a clean accept. - On reject: call
skills.suggestions.lib.decline(sid)— durable, this suggestion is never re-offered. - Move to the next suggestion.
- Show
- Never batch-apply. Never apply a suggestion without an explicit per-item answer from the friend.
Apply routes (by suggestion kind / payload action)
page_write→lib.memory.queue.proposethenqueue.approve_and_apply(qid, who="suggestions"). Instruction-plane (global/) pages go through the SAME human-gated door as ever — the recorded suggestion decision IS the human approval. Ifproposereturns a syntheticnoop-duplicateentry (content already matches the live page),accept()treats it asapplied=Falsewith a"content already on page"detail and still records the accept decision — never a half-applied state.promote_to_global→lib.memory.promotion.promote_to_global(source_page, session)thenapprove_and_apply.refresh_claude_md→lib.adapter.claude_md.write_global_claude_md().review_contradiction→ applies nothing; returns the two page paths and evidence so the session can reconcile them conversationally.orphan_page(#55) → applies nothing; hands the orphan page off to the session to place (a hub, a map,log.md), same convention asreview_contradiction.
Any apply failure is caught inside accept() and surfaced in detail —
the decision stays recorded either way.
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.

