kaizen
Skill11 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Improve software continuously through small, safe, behavior-preserving changes that reduce maintenance cost. Use for refactoring, cleanup, technical debt, naming, duplication, dead code, or post-change polish.
18 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- viniciusamelio/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- LuisSambrano/antigravity-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- JuankCadavid/akili-specstheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- spenserhale/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- allanninal/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- xfstudio/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions18 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 18
- JuankCadavid/akili-specs★ 10same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- flpbalada/fb-skills★ 8same name
- LuisSambrano/antigravity-config★ 8same name
- hfadhlullah/kaizen★ 6same name
- freskhu/genesis★ 5same name
- JoeCotellese/claude-code-config★ 5same name
- nek1987/auto-agent-harness★ 4same name
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 2same name
- allanninal/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
8 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- andonSkill
- genchi-genbutsuSkill
- hanseiSkill
- jidokaSkill
- kansoSkill
- kataSkill
- kodawariSkill
- monozukuri-blueprintSkill
- monozukuri-coreSkill
- monozukuri-routerSkill
- nemawashiSkill
- poka-yokeSkill
- shukkaSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
12
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 30
does not turn a focused task into a rewrite.
- Distinctive: line 42
Run the narrowest relevant tests, build, type check, benchmark, or behavior observation before changing structure.
- Distinctive: line 58
Run the baseline checks and inspect the diff.
- Distinctive: line 63
If more work is needed, record a concrete follow-up with a reason and boundary.
- Distinctive: line 64
Do not create a vague technical-debt backlog as a substitute for judgment.
- Distinctive: line 74
Do not refactor unrelated code because it is aesthetically unpleasant.
- Distinctive: line 75
Do not rewrite a stable module without a concrete problem and migration path.
- Distinctive: line 76
Do not change behavior silently under the label of cleanup.
- Distinctive: line 77
Do not add abstraction unless it removes more complexity than it creates.
- Distinctive: line 78
Do not use “leave it better” to bypass the user's scope.
- Distinctive: line 79
Do not reformat untouched code or apply broad lint fixes under the name of Kaizen.
- Distinctive: line 88
If a referenced skill is not installed, apply its named lens inline instead of trying to invoke it.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 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
Kaizen
Kaizen is continuous improvement. In software, make the codebase a little clearer, safer, or easier to change whenever a relevant opportunity can be handled without hiding scope or risk. This is a Japanese-inspired engineering metaphor, not permission for constant churn.
Use this skill when
- refactoring an existing area;
- removing duplication, dead paths, or misleading names;
- improving a module while implementing adjacent behavior;
- reducing recurring maintenance cost;
- converting a lesson into a guardrail; or
- deciding whether cleanup belongs in the current change.
Outcome
Produce a small improvement that:
- has a concrete maintenance, correctness, safety, or clarity benefit;
- preserves behavior unless behavior change is explicit;
- is easy to review and revert;
- has appropriate regression protection; and
- does not turn a focused task into a rewrite.
Workflow
1. Name the waste
Identify the specific pain: misleading language, duplication, dead code, unclear boundary, missing test, noisy diagnostic, fragile setup, repeated manual step, or known defect. Explain why it matters now.
2. Establish a baseline
Run the narrowest relevant tests, build, type check, benchmark, or behavior observation before changing structure. If no baseline exists, state the risk.
3. Make one small move
Rename, extract, delete, simplify, constrain, document, or automate one clear improvement. Keep the change local and avoid mixing a behavior change with an unrelated cleanup unless the cleanup is required for safety.
An adjacent improvement is allowed only when it is directly related to the task, low risk, independently verifiable, smaller than the primary change, and unlikely to complicate review or rollback. Otherwise record it as a concrete follow-up.
4. Preserve and verify
Run the baseline checks and inspect the diff. Confirm that the improvement reduced concepts or risk rather than merely moving complexity elsewhere.
5. Record the next step only when real
If more work is needed, record a concrete follow-up with a reason and boundary. Do not create a vague technical-debt backlog as a substitute for judgment.
Evidence standard
Show the before-and-after reason the change improves maintainability or safety. For performance or reliability claims, measure or state that the claim is not measured.
Boundaries
- Do not refactor unrelated code because it is aesthetically unpleasant.
- Do not rewrite a stable module without a concrete problem and migration path.
- Do not change behavior silently under the label of cleanup.
- Do not add abstraction unless it removes more complexity than it creates.
- Do not use “leave it better” to bypass the user's scope.
- Do not reformat untouched code or apply broad lint fixes under the name of Kaizen.
Handoff
Report the maintenance problem, improvement, behavior checks, and remaining
opportunities. Use poka-yoke for a new guardrail, kodawari for review, or
hansei when the improvement came from a failure or incident.
If a referenced skill is not installed, apply its named lens inline instead of trying to invoke it.
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.

