readme-generator
Skill30 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate or refactor project README.md files using repository evidence. Use when the user asks to create/rewrite/standardize README, improve documentation structure, or produce maintainable README templates for different project types (service/library/CLI/monorepo).
- Reads credentials
37 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- dmccreary/ibook-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- Sagargupta16/agent-recipestheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jaskirat1616/grok-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wedsamuel1230/arduino-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Tejas9406/vibe-coding-ostheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- weininghui/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use book-chapter-generator, concept-classifier 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.
vishalsachdevSkillbook-chapter-generator
This skill generates a structured chapter outline for intelligent textbooks by analyzing course descriptions, learning graphs, and concept dependencies. Use this skill after the learning graph has been created and before generating chapter content, to design an optimal chapter structure that respects concept dependencies and distributes content evenly across 6-20 chapters.
Also in 3 projects that use this
vishalsachdevSkillconcept-classifier
Create an interactive classification quiz MicroSim using p5.js where students read scenarios and classify them into the correct category from multiple choice options. Uses a data.json file for easy question editing. Ideal for teaching students to recognize patterns, identify types, or categorize examples across any subject domain.
Also in 3 projects that use this
JayRHaSkillchangelog-keeper
Maintains a CHANGELOG.md in the Keep a Changelog format with Semantic Versioning, grouping user-facing entries under Added/Changed/Deprecated/Removed/Fixed/Security and cutting dated releases from an Unreleased section. Use this skill when the user asks to "update the changelog", "add a changelog entry", "cut a release", "bump the version", "what changed since the last release", or to create/clean up a CHANGELOG.md or release notes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ATOM00blueSkillerror-message-explainer
Explains errors, stack traces, exceptions, and cryptic build/runtime messages in plain language, identifies the root cause, and gives a concrete fix. Use when the user pastes an error, stack trace, traceback, panic, compiler error, or failing log and asks what it means, why it happens, or how to fix it.
Also in 3 projects that use this
peopleforresterSkillrefactoring-guide
Safe refactoring patterns and techniques. Use when the user wants to improve code structure, reduce duplication, or make code more maintainable without changing behavior. Emphasizes incremental changes with test coverage.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +7 more from vishalsachdev
Other versions37 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 37
- serejaris/personal-corp-os★ 243same name
- serejaris/ris-claude-code★ 243same name
- dmccreary/claude-skills★ 110same name
- dmccreary/ibook-skills★ 110same name
- anchildress1/awesome-ai★ 67same name
- anchildress1/awesome-github-copilot★ 67same name
- MCDxAI/minecraft-dev-mcp★ 47same name
- geekjourneyx/readme-generator★ 44same name
- glincker/claude-code-marketplace★ 37same name
- jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills★ 30same name
27 more not listed
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 repository52 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-designSkill
- api-integration-testSkill
- constructive-thinkingSkill
- create-prSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- e2e-testSkill
- fuzzing-testSkill
- git-commitSkill
- go-benchmarkSkill
- go-ci-workflowSkill
- go-code-reviewerSkill
- go-concurrency-reviewSkill
- go-dependency-auditSkill
- go-error-reviewSkill
- go-logic-reviewSkill
- go-makefile-writerSkill
- go-observability-reviewSkill
- google-searchSkill
- go-performance-reviewSkill
- go-quality-reviewSkill
- go-review-leadSkill
- go-security-reviewSkill
- go-test-reviewSkill
- incident-postmortemSkill
- kafka-event-driven-designSkill
- load-testSkill
- local-transcriptSkill
- log-analyzerSkill
- mongo-migrationSkill
- monitoring-alertingSkill
- mysql-migrationSkill
- oceanbase-table-designSkill
- oracle-migrationSkill
- pg-migrationSkill
- redis-cache-strategySkill
- security-reviewSkill
- stock-analysis-leadSkill
- stock-balance-sheet-reviewSkill
- stock-business-reviewSkill
- stock-earnings-quality-reviewSkill
- stock-industry-reviewSkill
- stock-management-reviewSkill
- stock-peer-comparison-reviewSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- tech-doc-writerSkill
- thirdparty-api-integration-testSkill
- unit-testSkill
- update-docSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- yt-dlp-downloaderSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 31 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Keep internal workflow reporting out of the README body.
- Distinctive: line 18
Keep naming and paths consistent with the real repository layout.
- Distinctive: line 19
Treat top-level README.md as a user-facing homepage first, a maintainer reference second.
- Very specific: line 36
Not evidence-backed: coverage percentages, test counts, benchmark numbers, throughput, latency, or a response body — unless the repo …
- Very specific: line 42
If a repo has a manifest but no test files, still show the toolchain command and add No test files found in repo — the command is real, the …
- Distinctive: line 99
Run discovery first and read its verdict — do not re-derive these by hand:
- Very specific: line 107
When degraded: output Project Overview plus Not found in repo sections only, set degraded: true in the response, and list each missing item …
- Distinctive: line 130
Only emit badges whose URL is derivable from repo evidence.
- Very specific: line 159
Every command must resolve against one of these — a make target absent from the Makefile is a fabrication, and each half of make test && …
- Distinctive: line 176
Every type opens with an overview: name, one-sentence value proposition, then badges when evidence exists.
- Very specific: line 206
Keep English for package names, commands, file paths, environment variables, and precise technical identifiers.
- Distinctive: line 214
Keep a compact ToC for long, reference-shaped READMEs.
- Very specific: line 219
Label consistency: every ToC entry's text must match the ## heading it links to.
- Very specific: line 384
Run scripts/discover_readme_needs.sh first (workflow step 3) to collect repo facts deterministically, and scripts/lint_readme.py last (step …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 31 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.
Files
README Generator
Generate high-quality README documents from codebase evidence, with clear structure, runnable commands, and maintenance rules.
Core Rules
- Base every statement on repository evidence (files, code, scripts, workflows, configs).
- Keep internal workflow reporting out of the README body. Evidence maps, scorecards, and verification state belong in the assistant response — see §Command Verifiability Gate.
- Exclude local/private tooling folders by default (for example
.codex/) unless asked. - Keep naming and paths consistent with the real repository layout.
- Treat top-level
README.mdas a user-facing homepage first, a maintainer reference second.
Evidence Precedence (resolves "omit or mark?")
One rule, applied by section class — there is no third case:
| Section class | Evidence present | Evidence missing |
| Required for the project type (§Structure Policy) | Write it | Keep the heading, write Not found in repo |
| Optional (§Optional Sections) | Write it | Omit entirely and list it in sections_omitted |
Facts vs Results (resolves "is this command fabricated?")
A manifest proves a toolchain; only an artifact proves a result.
- Evidence-backed:
go test ./...whengo.modexists,pytestwhenpyproject.tomlexists,make <target>when that exact target is in the Makefile. - Not evidence-backed: coverage percentages, test counts, benchmark numbers, throughput,
latency, or a response body — unless the repo commits the artifact they come from
(a checked-in
benchstatoutput, a golden fixture, a committed coverage report). - A config file proves a target, never a measurement.
.codecov.ymlwithtarget: 80%licenses "the coverage target is 80%", not "coverage is 80%" — the latter asserts a result the repo does not record. The linter enforces that split. - If a repo has a manifest but no test files, still show the toolchain command and add
No test files found in repo— the command is real, the coverage claim would not be.
Quick Reference
| When you need to… | Jump to |
| Generate from scratch | §Pre-Generation Gates → §Project Type Routing → §Generation Workflow |
| Update an existing README | §Refactor Mode + references/checklist.md |
| Chinese or bilingual output | §Chinese / Bilingual + references/bilingual-guidelines.md |
| Monorepo / Lightweight | §Monorepo Rules + references/monorepo-rules.md · §Lightweight Template Mode |
| Calibrate ToC, check quality | §README Navigation Rule · §README Quality Scorecard + scripts/lint_readme.py |
| Evidence mapping, anti-patterns | §Evidence Mapping Output · §Anti-Examples (catalog in references/anti-examples.md) |
Pre-Generation Gates (Mandatory)
1) Audience and Language Gate
Decide target readers (contributors / operators / API consumers / end users) and output language (Chinese / English / bilingual). If unspecified, follow the existing repo docs and keep audience assumptions in working notes, not in the README. This gate also owns the lightweight decision (§Project Type Routing).
2) Project Type Routing
Two independent questions, two sources:
| Question | Answered by |
| Which sections, in what order | project_type effective → the template |
| What the commands say | the manifest in the repo (go.mod, package.json, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml) → references/language-snippets.md |
project_type detected classifies the repo as Service, Library, CLI, or Monorepo, and is
kept alongside effective so a lightweight promotion does not erase what the project
structurally is. It does not choose the command snippets — a Go CLI and a Node CLI
share a type and share no commands.
effective is the single answer — generation, the Output Contract, and
scripts/lint_readme.py all read it, so they cannot disagree.
Discovery never promotes to lightweight on its own. It reports
lightweight_eligible plus a named lightweight_blocked_by list (5+ dirs · CI present ·
deployment surface · public distribution surface · unclassified). Promotion is your call
at the Audience Gate, because the deciding trigger — audience is internal contributors only
— is a judgement no probe can make. Inferring it was harmful: a minimal public Go SDK
(go.mod + pkg/, no CI, few dirs) was silently downgraded and lost Installation and API.
Absence of CI is not evidence of absence of users, and a library is a public surface by
definition. When the Gate does establish an internal audience on an eligible repo, record it
with lint_readme.py --type=lightweight and report lightweight in the Output Contract.
Routing logic lives in
scripts/discover_readme_needs.sh— it reads Go, Node, Rust, and Python manifests, workspace markers (go.work,apps/,packages/, npmworkspaces, Cargo[workspace]), and entrypoint locations. Change prose and script together; sync is guarded byscripts/tests/test_discovery_script.py::TestRoutingSync.
3) Evidence Completeness Gate
Run discovery first and read its verdict — do not re-derive these by hand:
bash "<path-to-skill>/scripts/discover_readme_needs.sh"Minimum evidence: at least one entrypoint (the script emits an inventory), a determined
project type, a located command source. verdict status DEGRADED names which is missing.
When degraded: output Project Overview plus Not found in repo sections only, set
degraded: true in the response, and list each missing item with a suggested resolution.
4) Badge Detection Gate (Mandatory)
Scan for badge evidence before drafting: CI workflow files (an empty
.github/workflows/ is not evidence), coverage config, language version, license file. Add
a badge only when its evidence exists. Record the outcome in badges_added.
5) Command Verifiability Gate
Hard rule, no exceptions. Verification-state language — Verified, Not verified,
not executed in this environment, PASS/FAIL, scorecard output, degraded: true — never
appears inside README.md; it belongs in the assistant response. This holds even when the
user asks for a "verification table": produce it in the response and say why it is not in
the file, because the label goes stale the moment it is committed. Inside the README, write
evidence-backed install/run commands plus prerequisites.
Badge Strategy
Detection order, which is also render order: CI status → Coverage → Language version → License → Release.
Only emit badges whose URL is derivable from repo evidence. For a private repo, skip the
external URLs and add:
Badge note: repository is private; external badge URLs may not render outside authorized viewers.
→ URL templates and the community-file mapping: references/badges-and-governance.md.
Community and Governance Files
Detect LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, SECURITY.md, CHANGELOG.md;
link each present file from the matching section. License is the one exception to
§Evidence Precedence — an absent license is itself information, so the section never just
disappears: present → name it; absent → License: Not found in repo — consider adding a
LICENSE file. Only Lightweight mode on an internal repo omits it. Every other governance
file follows the normal optional rule. → references/badges-and-governance.md.
Key Evidence Targets
Scan before drafting; absent targets are recorded per §Evidence Precedence, never guessed.
| Class | Files |
| Entrypoints | main.go, cmd/*, package.json bin/main, src/main.rs, [project.scripts], executable scripts |
| Build/test hubs | Makefile, go.mod, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml |
| CI, config, governance, docs | .github/workflows/* · .env.example, config/*, docker-compose.yml · LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, CHANGELOG.md · README*.md, docs/* |
Command Priority
Makefile target → language-native manifest (go.mod, package.json, pyproject.toml,
Cargo.toml) → CI workflow command → direct tool invocation.
Every command must resolve against one of these — a make target absent from the Makefile
is a fabrication, and each half of make test && make deploy is checked separately, as is
anything behind sudo/VAR=x. On conflict, load references/command-priority.md.
Structure Policy
Required sections are per project type, not one flat list. A Library README carrying a Configuration section, or a CLI README carrying Deployment, is noise.
| Project type | Required sections |
| service | Quick Start, Prerequisites, Structure, Commands, Configuration, Testing, Maintenance |
| cli | Installation, Usage, Commands, Testing, Maintenance |
| library | Installation, Usage, API, Testing, Maintenance |
| monorepo | Repository Overview, Quick Start, Commands, Structure, Maintenance |
| lightweight | Quick Start, Commands, Structure, Testing, Maintenance |
Every type opens with an overview: name, one-sentence value proposition, then badges when
evidence exists. Missing a primary section (Quick Start / Installation / Usage /
Repository Overview, per type) is a Critical defect; missing any other required section is
Standard — lint_readme.py reports them as R009 and R012 respectively.
Sections and commands are separate axes (§Project Type Routing). This matrix is the
same table lint_readme.py enforces (REQUIRED_SECTIONS), kept in sync by
test_forward_eval.py::RequiredSectionSyncTest.
For public homepages, order the top of the file: value proposition → highlights → prerequisites → install → quick start → end-to-end example → reference sections.
Optional Sections (include only when evidence exists)
Architecture / data flow · Deployment / operations · API usage examples · Release and versioning · Contributing · Security notes · Contact and support. Missing evidence means omit — see §Evidence Precedence. License is deliberately not on this list (§Community and Governance Files).
Lightweight Template Mode
Triggers: fewer than 5 top-level functional directories · no deployment/ops workflows in
the repo · no public API/SDK surface · README targets internal contributors only. Discovery
reports the first three as lightweight_eligible; the fourth is yours to assert
(§Project Type Routing). Required sections: Project overview, Quick start, Common commands,
Project structure (short), Testing and quality checks, Documentation maintenance note.
Skip heavy optional sections unless explicitly requested.
Chinese / Bilingual README Guidelines
Keep English for package names, commands, file paths, environment variables, and precise
technical identifiers; translate headings and prose. Never use double-language headings
(## Quick Start / 快速开始) — prefer ## 快速开始, ## 项目结构, ## 常用命令. In
bilingual mode Chinese is the primary prose with English technical terms inline.
→ references/bilingual-guidelines.md for the full rules.
README Navigation Rule
- Keep a compact ToC for long, reference-shaped READMEs; omit it when the file is scannable without scrolling. Never delete a useful existing ToC just to shorten.
- Size: 7–10 entries max for a simple CLI or library. Exclude architecture internals, contributor-only sections, and anything that is not a direct action step for the primary audience — they stay in the body.
- Label consistency: every ToC entry's text must match the
##heading it links to.
Monorepo Rules
Repository overview table instead of a deep tree dump · link to submodule READMEs rather
than duplicating internals · document shared root commands only · missing root LICENSE →
Not found in repo, never guessed inheritance. Load references/monorepo-rules.md first.
End-to-End Example Rule
For CLI tools, converters, and generators, show one complete example: the input command,
then the resulting file name or response shape. No-fabrication constraint: with no
sample output, fixture, or documented response format in the repo, show the invocation and
describe the destination generically — never an invented JSON body, row count, or status
line: schema-gen generate --output ./schemas ./internal/models # → writes to ./schemas/
Anti-Examples (BAD / GOOD Markdown Pairs)
The most common failure is process-state labels in the README body — a ## Testing —
Status: Not verified heading, or a | Command | Verified | table. The rule is absolute
(§Command Verifiability Gate); the worked BAD/GOOD pair, plus fabricated badges, guessed
config, unbacked metrics, monorepo tree dumps, double-language headings, and
output-without-input, are all in references/anti-examples.md. Load it before refactoring
an existing README.
Generation Workflow
- Detect audience — end users, contributors, operators, or mixed.
- Detect language — English, Chinese, or bilingual.
- Run discovery —
scripts/discover_readme_needs.sh; read verdict and entrypoints. - Collect evidence — entrypoints,
Makefile, manifests, workflows, config, existing docs. - Route — template from
project_type effective, commands from the manifest. - Choose command source — apply Command Priority; resolve conflicts before drafting.
- Load references selectively — template, snippets, golden example, checklist, rules.
- Draft sections — from evidence, in homepage-first reader order.
- Calibrate — ToC, badges, end-to-end example, optional sections.
- Polish — remove process wording, duplicate headings, guessed config, filler.
- Self-check —
python3 "<path-to-skill>/scripts/lint_readme.py" <repo-dir> <readme-path>; fix every critical finding before returning. - Return the output contract — evidence mapping, scorecard, degraded flag, omissions.
Refactor Mode (Existing README)
Preserve valuable prose, fix contradictory commands, replace guessed content, re-evaluate
the project type, re-run the scorecard. Load references/checklist.md for the refactor
checklist and the update-trigger matrix that detects staleness after code changes (new
entrypoint, env var, Makefile target, CI workflow, LICENSE, Go version, and the rest).
Output Style
Short, direct prose; fenced blocks for trees and commands; no internal rubric language. Notes about why a section looks the way it does belong outside the document.
Evidence Mapping Output (Required)
Output this in the assistant response, not inside the README. Every non-trivial section
maps to at least one evidence source, or to Not found in repo; one line per section.
| README Section | Evidence File(s) | Evidence Snippet/Reason |
| Quick Start | Makefile, go.mod | target/command exists |
| Configuration | .env.example | variables defined |
Output Contract (Mandatory Fields)
| # | Field | Required | Description |
| 1 | project_type | Always | the effective type: service / library / cli / monorepo / lightweight |
| 2 | language | Always | en / zh / bilingual |
| 3 | template_used | Always | Template A–E name |
| 4 | evidence_mapping | Always | Section → evidence file table |
| 5 | scorecard | Always | 3-tier result, denominators = applicable items |
| 6 | degraded | When applicable | whether evidence was insufficient |
| 7 | missing_evidence | When degraded | missing items and suggested actions |
| 8 | badges_added | When applicable | badge types added, or "skipped (reason)" |
| 9 | sections_omitted | When applicable | optional sections skipped, with reason |
Machine-Readable Summary (JSON)
{
"project_type": "service", "language": "zh", "template_used": "Template A: Service",
"degraded": false,
"scorecard": {"critical": "3/3", "standard": "5/5", "hygiene": "3/3"},
"machine_result": "PASS", "final_result": "PENDING_HUMAN_REVIEW",
"unchecked": ["C4", "S6", "H4"],
"badges_added": ["CI", "Coverage", "Go Version", "License"],
"sections_omitted": [], "missing_evidence": []
}Denominators are applicable items; scripts/lint_readme.py emits this block.
README Quality Scorecard (3-Tier)
Critical Tier — any FAIL means the whole output FAILs:
| # | Check | PASS Rule |
| C1 | Evidence-backed claims | Every non-trivial statement traces to a repo file |
| C2 | No fabricated content | Zero guessed commands, URLs, config values, paths, metrics |
| C3 | Primary onboarding path present and actionable | Reader gets running in ≤ 3 steps. Per type: Quick Start for Service / Monorepo / Lightweight, Installation + Usage for CLI / Library — the set lint_readme.py treats as primary (R009) |
| C4 | Correct project type routing | Template matches the discovery verdict — needs a human |
Standard Tier — items that do not apply leave the denominator:
| # | Check | Applies to | PASS Rule |
| S1 | Command source attribution | all | Every command resolves to a Makefile / script / manifest |
| S2 | Structure section with purpose | Service, Monorepo, Lightweight | Key directories listed with one-line descriptions |
| S3 | Config/env section present | Service, or any type with .env.example / config/ | Required variables documented, source cited |
| S4 | Testing commands included | all | A test command; plus a lint command only when the repo has a linter |
| S5 | Badges evidence-based | all | Only real URLs; private-repo fallback applied if needed |
| S6 | Audience and language explicit | all — needs a human | Stated in working notes, or in README when it helps |
Scoring is passed / applicable; the bar is two thirds of applicable, rounded up — the old
4/6 and 3/4 expressed so they survive items dropping out. (Why: a Library has no
Structure section, must not invent Configuration, and cannot show a lint command for a repo
with no linter — against a flat six-item list it lost three automatically and scored 3/6.)
S4 judges what a target runs, not what it is named: make check-types running
tsc --noEmit is not a test command.
Hygiene Tier — same passed / applicable rule; H4 needs a human and is excluded:
| # | Check | PASS Rule |
| H1 | Maintenance trigger note | "Update this README when…" section present |
| H2 | No internal process labels | No verification state or scorecard language in the body |
| H3 | Navigation and ToC quality | Sized to complexity; every label matches its heading |
| H4 | Optional sections gated | Architecture / Deployment / API only when evidence exists — needs a human |
Output: Critical: X/N | Standard: X/N applicable | Hygiene: X/N applicable → machine …;
final …. Name the N/A items and those needing a human, so a shrinking denominator stays
visible. machine_result and final_result are separate: C4 (routing), S6 (audience)
and H4 (optional-section gating) are the three a script cannot settle, and C4 is Critical.
So a clean machine run is machine_result: PASS + final_result: PENDING_HUMAN_REVIEW,
becoming a real PASS only once you have judged those three. A machine FAIL stays FAIL —
"pending" never softens a failure.
scripts/lint_readme.py computes the whole card and checks the high-frequency
violations: undefined make/npm targets (including behind sudo/VAR=x prefixes and on
each half of a && chain), env vars absent from .env.example, non-existent paths,
placeholder residue, metrics with no committed artifact, unevidenced badges, missing
required sections, ToC/heading mismatches, process labels. It also asserts every shipped
golden example clears its own tier.
It is a floor, not the tier. A linter-clean README can still fail C1/C2 — a plausible but wrong claim, a command that exists yet does the wrong thing, a structure description that is stale rather than invented. Read it as "no detectable fabrication", then judge the three UNCHECKED items yourself.
Load References Selectively
| Load… | When |
references/templates.md | generating from scratch or switching template (Template A–E, prerequisites format) |
references/language-snippets.md | filling a template's command blocks (Go / Node / Python / Rust) |
references/golden-<type>.md | calibrating output quality; index at references/golden-examples.md |
references/command-priority.md | command conflicts across Makefile / package.json / CI |
references/checklist.md | final review of a refactor |
references/anti-examples.md | refactoring a README with suspected anti-patterns |
references/bilingual-guidelines.md | Chinese or bilingual output |
references/monorepo-rules.md | monorepo detected |
references/badges-and-governance.md | badge URLs and governance-file mapping |
Run scripts/discover_readme_needs.sh first (workflow step 3) to collect repo facts
deterministically, and scripts/lint_readme.py last (step 11) to check the draft against
those same facts. Skill regression: bash "<path-to-skill>/scripts/run_regression.sh".
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.

