agentleFS
joinwell52-AIjoinwell52-AI/CodeFlowMu-open/skills/pm-evolve-skills/SKILL.md

pm-evolve-skills

Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Discover, learn, validate, and retain capabilities that the PM needs but does not yet have. Use whenever a request needs unfamiliar domain knowledge, a missing tool or workflow, a new MCP capability, a new Skill, or stronger evidence than the PM can currently produce.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Treat capability gaps as work to resolve, not as a reason to guess or immediately hand the problem back to ADMIN.

    line 8
  2. Very specific:

    Use skill_search to search the local library, GitHub, and the public web when the capability is not already known.

    line 18
  3. Very specific:

    Use skill_learn with selected local skill ids and source URLs to build a traceable learning pack.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    Verify the result against an explicit expectation.

    line 23
  5. Distinctive:

    Update or create a focused Skill when the procedure will recur.

    line 26
  6. Distinctive:

    Add a template or example when structure matters.

    line 27
  7. Very specific:

    Use skill_publish only after a real validation succeeds.

    line 29
  8. Distinctive:

    Check the relevant UI playbook packages:

    line 37
  9. Distinctive:

    If the pattern will recur, refine the Playbook or create a smaller reusable template after validation.

    line 44
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not equate reading with learning.

    line 66
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not install or create broad capabilities when a smaller local procedure suffices.

    line 67
  12. Distinctive:

    Do not claim a tool exists until its registry or schema is inspected.

    line 68
  13. Distinctive:

    Do not fabricate successful experiments or conceal failed attempts.

    line 69

≈ “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

PM Skill Evolution

Treat capability gaps as work to resolve, not as a reason to guess or immediately hand the problem back to ADMIN.

Workflow

  1. State the required capability precisely. Distinguish missing knowledge, missing procedure, missing tool access, and missing permission.
  2. Inventory what is already available:
    • MCP tools and their schemas.
    • .codeflowmu/agent-skills.manifest.json.
    • Relevant skills/*/SKILL.md packages.
    • Repository code, tests, docs, examples, and prior evidence.
    • Use skill_search to search the local library, GitHub, and the public web when the capability is not already known.
  3. Select the smallest credible learning source. Prefer source code, tests, official documentation, and proven local examples.
  4. Load only the relevant Skill or documentation. Do not flood context with the whole catalog.
    • Use skill_learn with selected local skill ids and source URLs to build a traceable learning pack.
  5. Learn by doing: run a minimal experiment, build a small example, inspect a real artifact, or execute a reversible probe.
  6. Verify the result against an explicit expectation. Record failures and uncertainty honestly.
  7. Apply the capability to the current problem.
  8. Retain reusable learning:
    • Update or create a focused Skill when the procedure will recur.
    • Add a template or example when structure matters.
    • Record a proposal when installation, permission, or architectural change requires approval.
    • Use skill_publish only after a real validation succeeds. Include validation evidence and source URLs; do not overwrite an existing Skill implicitly.
  9. Reuse retained knowledge on later tasks instead of rediscovering it.

Product / UI capability gaps

Weak product planning is a capability gap. If PM cannot confidently define product positioning, user value, information architecture, interaction flow, visual direction, mobile/PWA/Gateway delivery boundary, or acceptance evidence, PM must:

  1. Load pm-product-design-brief.
  2. Check the relevant UI playbook packages:
    • ui-requirements
    • ui-information-architecture
    • ui-visual-consistency
    • ui-usability-acceptance
  3. Inspect nearby successful product examples or reports before dispatch.
  4. Produce a concrete design brief, then dispatch DEV / QA / OPS.
  5. If the pattern will recur, refine the Playbook or create a smaller reusable template after validation.

Capability Decision

  • available: load and use the existing capability.
  • learnable_now: study and validate it within the current task.
  • creatable: create a focused Skill, helper, or template and validate it.
  • installable: use the approved plugin/skill installation path.
  • permission_blocked: explain the exact permission or ADMIN decision required.
  • not_yet_verified: do not claim competence; continue research or report the limitation.

Evidence Contract

  • Capability required
  • Sources inspected
  • Skill or tool selected
  • Validation performed
  • Result and remaining uncertainty
  • Reusable artifact retained, when applicable

Guardrails

  • Do not equate reading with learning; validation is required.
  • Do not install or create broad capabilities when a smaller local procedure suffices.
  • Do not claim a tool exists until its registry or schema is inspected.
  • Do not fabricate successful experiments or conceal failed attempts.

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.