fable-handoff
Skill6 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Compact session decisions, durable evidence, open blockers, and exact next actions into structured continuation state for cross-session resumption. Use when pausing a coding session, transferring context to another agent, summarizing long-running work, or creating durable continuation checkpoints — even if the user does not explicitly say \"fable-handoff\" (e.g. \"save context for next session\", \"create a handoff\", \"pause work here\", \"summarize where we left off\"). Do NOT use as a substitute for verifying code changes (use fable-verify).
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Kapersky1337/fable-handofftheir own version, first seen Jul 13, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- Kapersky1337/fable-handoff★ 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 repository55 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/fable-tend/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/fable-wise/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/fable-tend/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/fable-tend/site/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/fable-wise/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- public/llms.txtllms.txt
- get-fableSkill
- typesafe-aiSkill
- get-fableSkill
- get-fableSkill
- fable-architectureSkill
- fable-artifactSkill
- fable-configSkill
- fable-context-thriftSkill
- fable-councilSkill
- fable-coworkSkill
- fable-datavizSkill
- fable-delegateSkill
- fable-discoverSkill
- fable-domainSkill
- fable-ecoSkill
- fable-evalSkill
- fable-executeSkill
- fable-finish-your-turnSkill
- fable-healSkill
- fable-judgeSkill
- fable-learningSkill
- fable-loopSkill
- fable-memorySkill
- fable-methodSkill
- fable-native-codeSkill
- fable-outcome-firstSkill
- fable-planSkill
- fable-prove-itSkill
- fable-recoverSkill
- fable-redteamSkill
- fable-releaseSkill
- fable-researchSkill
- fable-reviewSkill
- fable-runSkill
- fable-scope-disciplineSkill
- fable-securitySkill
- fable-simplifySkill
- fable-simulatorSkill
- fable-skill-creatorSkill
- fable-sparkSkill
- fable-tddSkill
- fable-tendSkill
- fable-verifySkill
- fable-wiseSkill
- get-fableSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
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
- Distinctive: line 31
Leave enough verified context that another agent can resume the work without replaying the whole conversation or rediscovering the …
- Distinctive: line 79
Rejected hypotheses: avoid repeating failed reasoning.
- Distinctive: line 80
Unresolved questions: only those that can change the next action.
- Very specific: line 89
Never turn NOT_CHECKED into prose that sounds like PASS.
- Distinctive: line 105
Do not copy secrets, tokens, private keys, raw credentials, unnecessary personal data, or giant logs.
- Distinctive: line 108
Prefer exact identifiers (branch, SHA, PR, file path, command) over narrative descriptions.
- Distinctive: line 111
If the worktree is dirty, distinguish owned task changes from unrelated/user-owned changes.
- Distinctive: line 112
If next action depends on an unresolved decision, route to planning/recovery first rather than inventing a handoff action.
- Distinctive: line 114
Do not copy full logs when the error signature + command + key lines are sufficient.
- Distinctive: line 176
avoid repeating disproved attempts.
≈ “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
Fable Handoff
Leave enough verified context that another agent can resume the work without replaying the whole conversation or rediscovering the repository.
Mission
A handoff is not a summary. It is a resumption contract.
The receiving agent should know what was requested, what was actually changed, which claims are proven, which evidence is stale or missing, what is currently blocked, and the first safe action to take next.
Activate When
- pausing a long-running task;
- transferring work to another agent/human/session;
- context is becoming too large and needs durable compaction;
- a release/PR remains incomplete but execution must stop;
- an automation/cowork loop needs a durable checkpoint.
Do Not Activate When
- there is nothing durable to preserve beyond a trivial completed turn;
- the next action itself is unclear because planning/diagnosis is unfinished;
- a handoff would be used to hide missing verification or unresolved failure.
Continuity Classification
| State | Handoff emphasis |
| Clean completed card | exact evidence + next card |
| Dirty worktree | owned vs unrelated changes + safe resume point |
| Failed attempt | reproduction, attempts, revised/remaining hypotheses |
| Review pending | diff/base, findings, verification state |
| Release pending | candidate SHA/version, channel states, external blockers |
| Research/discovery pending | measured facts, unresolved load-bearing questions |
| Delegated work pending | worker ownership, returned/missing packets |
Protocol
Stage 1 — Reconstruct the durable task
Capture the original/current user outcome in one concise statement. Separate it from implementation tactics discovered later.
Stage 2 — Snapshot exact repository/work state
Record when available:
- branch/worktree and candidate commit SHA;
- active card/phase;
- files/surfaces intentionally changed;
- unrelated user changes that must be preserved;
- generated artifacts/state files intentionally not committed;
- open PR/issues/release/tag identifiers.
Stage 3 — Separate facts, decisions, and guesses
Use distinct buckets:
- Measured facts: observed repository/runtime/provider evidence;
- Decisions: selected architecture/contract and why;
- Inferences: plausible but not yet proven;
- Rejected hypotheses: avoid repeating failed reasoning;
- Unresolved questions: only those that can change the next action.
Stage 4 — Record evidence with freshness
For each important claim record:
- command/probe/source;
- result;
- relevant mutation/commit/artifact;
- whether it is fresh, stale, or not checked.
Never turn NOT_CHECKED into prose that sounds like PASS.
Stage 5 — Record failures and attempted repairs
Include only attempts that teach the receiver something. State what was tried, what happened, and why that changed or did not change the hypothesis.
Stage 6 — State blockers precisely
A blocker must say what external fact/permission/environment is missing and what becomes possible when it is resolved.
Bad: CI issue.
Good: GitHub Dependency Review fails because Dependency Graph is disabled for the repository; code/security scan itself did not report a dependency vulnerability.
Stage 7 — Give one next safe action
The first next action should be executable and justified by current evidence. If several actions are independent, list them after naming the primary one.
Stage 8 — Sanitize
Do not copy secrets, tokens, private keys, raw credentials, unnecessary personal data, or giant logs. Refer to secure credential mechanisms rather than values.
Decision Rules
- Prefer exact identifiers (branch, SHA, PR, file path, command) over narrative descriptions.
- Preserve negative knowledge: a disproved theory prevents repeated waste.
- Evidence freshness must survive compaction; old green tests cannot be summarized as current green.
- If the worktree is dirty, distinguish owned task changes from unrelated/user-owned changes.
- If next action depends on an unresolved decision, route to planning/recovery first rather than inventing a handoff action.
- Conversation history is optional context; the handoff must stand alone.
- Do not copy full logs when the error signature + command + key lines are sufficient.
Invariants
- Handoff is truthful about what is and is not proven.
- Receiving agent can locate the exact work without guessing names/branches/files.
- Secrets are never persisted in the handoff.
- Unrelated user changes are explicitly protected.
- The next action cannot silently require context omitted from the handoff.
Failure Taxonomy
Narrative dump
Too much chat chronology, too little executable state. Rebuild around task/state/evidence/next action.
False freshness
Old proof is summarized as current. Attach mutation/SHA/artifact context and downgrade stale evidence.
Context starvation
Receiver must rediscover architecture or why a decision was made. Add the smallest load-bearing evidence/decision rationale.
Secret leakage
Credential appears in summary/log. Remove value and reference secure source only.
Ambiguous ownership
Dirty files are listed without saying which belong to task/user/other work. Clarify before handoff.
Fake closure
Handoff says "done" while external gate/review/provider evidence is missing. Use explicit pending/blocker state.
Anti-Patterns
- copying the entire conversation;
- dumping terminal output without interpretation;
- omitting failed attempts so next agent repeats them;
- saying "tests passed" without commit/mutation freshness;
- storing tokens because "the next agent will need them";
- vague next steps such as "continue fixing";
- losing user constraints/preferences that materially affect implementation;
- claiming release/publication from a prepared artifact only.
Handoff Packet
Goal:
Current branch/worktree/SHA:
Active phase/card:
Intentional changes:
Protected unrelated changes:
Measured facts:
Decisions + rationale:
Rejected hypotheses / failed attempts:
Evidence:
- claim → command/source → result → fresh/stale/not checked
Open findings/blockers:
External states (PR/CI/release/registry):
Primary next safe action:
Secondary independent actions:
Do not repeat / do not change:Completion Criteria
A handoff is complete when a zero-context receiving agent can:
- identify the exact task and repository state;
- distinguish facts/decisions/inferences;
- know which evidence is fresh;
- avoid repeating disproved attempts;
- preserve unrelated work and credentials safely;
- execute the next action without asking for missing basic context.
Progressive Resources
- Deep guide:
references/resumability-and-context-compaction.md - Existing schema:
references/continuity-schema.md - Template:
templates/handoff-state.template.md - Example:
examples/cross-session-handoff.md
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.

