get-things-done
CLAUDE.md2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
This project has a knowledge graph. Start with the code-review-graph MCP tools to narrow scope, then read the source. The graph is cheaper than scanning files and gives you structural context (callers, dependents, test coverage) that file search cannot. - Narrow scope with the graph, then read the source. Do not change code from graph output alone. - For any non-trivial change, read the implementation and the relevant tests before concluding. - Verify the exact source when touching behavior, database…
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- tirth8205/code-review-graphword for word, first seen Jun 10, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- tirth8205/code-review-graph★ 33k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/improve/agents/claude.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/use-chatgpt/agents/claude.mdCLAUDE.md
- debug-issueSkill
- explore-codebaseSkill
- refactor-safelySkill
- review-changesSkill
- building-gtd-domain-packsSkill
- get-things-doneSkill
- gtd-capability-routerSkill
- gtd-deliberationSkill
- improveSkill
- reaSkill
- use-chatgptSkill
The file
We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are 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.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 20
Verify the exact source when touching behavior, database logic, migrations, retries, fallbacks, recovery, or compatibility code.
- Distinctive: line 22
When the graph and the source disagree, the source wins.
- Very specific: line 42
Use detect_changes_tool for code review.
- Very specific: line 43
Use get_affected_flows_tool to understand impact.
- Very specific: line 44
Use query_graph_tool pattern="tests_for" to check coverage.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md 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
<!-- code-review-graph MCP tools -->MCP Tools: code-review-graph
This project has a knowledge graph. Start with the code-review-graph MCP tools to narrow scope, then read the source. The graph is cheaper than scanning files and gives you structural context (callers, dependents, test coverage) that file search cannot.
When to use graph tools FIRST
- Exploring code:
semantic_search_nodes_toolorquery_graph_toolinstead of Grep - Understanding impact:
get_impact_radius_toolinstead of manually tracing imports - Code review:
detect_changes_tool+get_review_context_toolinstead of reading entire files - Finding relationships:
query_graph_toolwith callers_of/callees_of/imports_of/tests_for - Architecture questions:
get_architecture_overview_tool+list_communities_tool
Verify in the source
- Narrow scope with the graph, then read the source. Do not change code from graph output alone.
- For any non-trivial change, read the implementation and the relevant tests before concluding.
- Verify the exact source when touching behavior, database logic, migrations, retries, fallbacks, recovery, or compatibility code.
- When the graph and the source disagree, the source wins. The graph may be stale or may not model that relationship.
- An empty graph result can mean "not indexed" or "not statically visible", not "does not exist".
Key Tools
| Tool | Use when |
detect_changes_tool | Reviewing code changes — gives risk-scored analysis |
get_review_context_tool | Need source snippets for review — token-efficient |
get_impact_radius_tool | Understanding blast radius of a change |
get_affected_flows_tool | Finding which execution paths are impacted |
query_graph_tool | Tracing callers, callees, imports, tests, dependencies |
semantic_search_nodes_tool | Finding functions/classes by name or keyword |
get_architecture_overview_tool | Understanding high-level codebase structure |
refactor_tool | Planning renames, finding dead code |
Workflow
- The graph auto-updates on file changes (via hooks).
- Use
detect_changes_toolfor code review. - Use
get_affected_flows_toolto understand impact. - Use
query_graph_toolpattern="tests_for" to check coverage.
<!-- /code-review-graph MCP tools -->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.