agentleFS
jhlee0409jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit/skills/localize/SKILL.md

localize

Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Resolve a change request into an EXACT edit target before touching code, then gate the edit on tests — the localize → edit → validate loop. Use for a bug fix, an issue, or a feature change where the right files/symbols are not already obvious, or when the user says "이거 고쳐줘", "어디를 고쳐야 해?", "fix this issue", "where does this live?". Produces a localization artifact (targets + evidence + uncertainty) first; edits only after it, validates with a focused test then a regression run.

22 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use soak-test, team-live-ops and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • lilangMaxSkill

    soak-test

    Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    team-live-ops

    Orchestrate the live-ops team for post-launch content planning: coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, writer, and narrative-director to design and plan a season, event, or live content update.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • +10 more from lilangMax

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 21 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do NOT start editing from the first plausible file.

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    Search from those signals: grep the error string / symbol.

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    If tests exist, use the failing test (or write one that reproduces the symptom) to point at the fault — a failing test IS localization …

    line 34
  4. Distinctive:

    Focused first: run the specific test covering the change (or the reproducer from step 1).

    line 53
  5. Very specific:

    Regression next: run the stack's test command (the repo's detected test_cmd).

    line 55
  6. Distinctive:

    No blind retries: if two edits don't pass, re-localize (the target was wrong), don't loop on the same site — broad retry loops compound …

    line 68

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 21 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

localize — localize → edit → validate

Do NOT start editing from the first plausible file. Empirically, a staged localize → repair → validate loop resolves real repository issues at a fraction of the cost of broad autonomous exploration (Agentless, arXiv 2407.01489), and the benchmark contract for "resolved" is a change whose tests pass (SWE-bench, arXiv 2310.06770). This skill enforces that discipline: name the target with evidence, make the minimal edit, then prove it with tests.

1. LOCALIZE — produce the target before editing

From the request, find the exact edit site(s). Do NOT edit in this phase.

  • Extract the concrete signals from the request: error text, stack trace, symptom, endpoint / field / component name, the file it mentions.
  • Search from those signals: grep the error string / symbol; glob the module; read the suspected files. For a symbol you will change, run /harness-kit:blast-radius <symbol> to enumerate everything that depends on it, so the edit scope is known up front (not discovered after a half-fix).
  • If tests exist, use the failing test (or write one that reproduces the symptom) to point at the fault — a failing test IS localization evidence.

Localization artifact (write it down, BLUF):

  • Targets: each file:line + symbol you intend to change, with the evidence that put it there (the grep hit / the failing test / the reference).
  • Impact: the blast-radius set for any changed signature (callsites that must move together).
  • Uncertainty: what you are NOT sure about + the candidate you'd check next. Non-empty is honest; a confident-but-wrong target is the failure mode here.

2. EDIT — minimal, scoped to the target

Make the smallest change that addresses the request at the localized site. Update every callsite the blast-radius set named — do not leave a half-migrated signature. Match the surrounding idioms.

3. VALIDATE — tests gate the change

  • Focused first: run the specific test covering the change (or the reproducer from step 1). It must go from failing → passing.
  • Regression next: run the stack's test command (the repo's detected test_cmd). Report pass/fail counts.
  • Real-run evidence for a "feature works" claim: a real input → real output, not just green unit tests (per the kit's 0.3 No premature done).
  • Record the commands run + outcomes in the handoff / verify artifact.

Constraints

  • The localization artifact (step 1) is REQUIRED before any edit — no "edit first, find the rest later".
  • A change is not done until its focused test passes AND the regression run is green (or the failures are pre-existing and named). "Compiles" / "200 OK" is not validation.
  • No blind retries: if two edits don't pass, re-localize (the target was wrong), don't loop on the same site — broad retry loops compound error, they don't fix localization.
  • Bounded autonomy: this is one change → one validation → the human gate, not an open-ended fix loop.

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.