agentleFS
iuryszaiurysza/agent-skills/skills/reply-bro/SKILL.md

reply-bro

Skill5 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub

Rewrites technical review replies as short, natural Slack or PR messages between engineers. Use when asked to make a reply more casual, concise, less formal, or less AI-generated while keeping its main technical point.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    Use 3 or 4 short sentences.

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Start with a positive acknowledgement, such as “Good shout.”

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep only the main technical concern.

    line 17
  4. Distinctive:

    Use plain, casual language.

    line 20

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Reply bro

Turn the supplied reply into a short message that sounds like an engineer typed it quickly in Slack or a PR discussion.

Rules

  • Output only the rewritten message. Do not add headings, bullets, or commentary.
  • Use 3 or 4 short sentences.
  • Start with a positive acknowledgement, such as “Good shout.”
  • Keep only the main technical concern. Cut specification detail, repeated reasoning, and formal language.
  • Raise the concern as a question, not a rejection. Use natural phrasing such as “Would this fit here though?” or “It looks like…”.
  • End by asking whether a simpler alternative would work, for example: “Maybe keeping existing.attribute is simpler?”
  • Use plain, casual language. Avoid sounding certain, argumentative, or like a formal technical review.

Check before replying

Confirm the result starts positively, has 3–4 sentences, makes the concern a question, and ends with the simpler alternative.

Example

Source:

That page is why we should not use hw.memory.size. It is a hardware metric for a DIMM in a monitored host, not a span attribute for phone RAM. The specification defines it as an UpDownCounter representing the size of a memory module and requires hardware-specific identity attributes. A mobile launch span has none of that. Additionally, calculating the RAM bucket in Honeycomb would require sending and storing the raw RAM value. We should keep sumup.device.ram_bucket.

Reply:

Good shout. Would hw.memory.size fit here though? It looks like a host memory-module metric, while we need total RAM on a mobile launch span. Calculating it in Honeycomb would also mean sending raw RAM. Maybe keeping sumup.device.ram_bucket is simpler?

Download now (ZIP)

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.