grill-harness-with-docs
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Grounds agent work in authoritative evidence, establishes shared understanding, critiques resolved material decisions and changes with a fresh agent, and resolves genuinely open decisions with a human. Use for resolved material work needing independent critique or for any product, domain, engineering, architecture, operations, security, compliance, or harness topic with unresolved intent, semantics, authority, consequential trade-offs, or material risk.
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-designSkill
- backend-craftSkill
- meilisearchSkill
- design-coreSkill
- design-datavizSkill
- design-flowsSkill
- design-formsSkill
- design-product-uiSkill
- design-researchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-slidesSkill
- design-systemsSkill
- design-webSkill
- agent-syncSkill
- build-autonomous-agentsSkill
- coding-disciplineSkill
- completion-gateSkill
- deliver-dependency-upgradesSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- learn-agentic-engineeringSkill
- pnpmSkill
- scaffold-harnessSkill
- scaffold-monorepoSkill
- shift-left-securitySkill
- start-gateSkill
- update-harnessSkill
- write-a-skillSkill
- frontend-craftSkill
- ansible-automationSkill
- gitea-actionsSkill
- gitea-teaSkill
- manage-infrastructure-as-codeSkill
- multi-stage-dockerfileSkill
- secure-linux-web-hostingSkill
- integrate-product-complianceSkill
- plain-numbersSkill
- product-craftSkill
- run-product-engineeringSkill
- playwright-best-practicesSkill
- testing-strategiesSkill
- writing-coreSkill
- writing-editorialSkill
- writing-engineeringSkill
- writing-marketingSkill
- writing-productSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Read the applicable instructions, domain sources, state, contracts, and checks.
- Distinctive: line 53
Ask only this decision and wait.
- Distinctive: line 56
Do not send discoverable facts back to a human as questions.
- Distinctive: line 63
Update the smallest owning artifact:
- Distinctive: line 82
Run the smallest relevant deterministic checks.
- Distinctive: line 84
Keep a workflow human-in-the-loop until explicit scope, permissions, meaningful checks or evals, recovery, rollback, observability, and …
≈ “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.
Files
Grill Work With Evidence
1. Ground Shared Understanding
- Identify the outcome, scope, non-goals, and repository or system boundary.
- Read the applicable instructions, domain sources, state, contracts, and checks.
- Investigate discoverable facts through repository evidence, tools, and primary sources.
- Name decision rights, assumptions, unknowns, success checks, stop conditions, and recovery.
- Surface conflicting evidence with its sources and owning authority.
Grounding is complete when a human or fresh agent can state the same outcome, evidence, boundaries, unresolved questions, and completion signal without depending on chat inference.
2. Route the Branch
Classify each remaining uncertainty:
- reversible evidence-backed maintenance -> update autonomously
- bounded low-risk hypothesis -> run the smallest useful experiment
- resolved material decision or change -> run fresh-context agent critique
- unresolved intent, priority, semantics, architecture, governance, authority, model budget, blast radius, consequential trade-off, or material risk -> keep a human in the loop
Routing is complete when every dependent branch is resolved, assigned to the right reviewer, or explicitly blocked.
3. Critique or Grill
For a resolved material branch, give a fresh-context agent the shared- understanding frame, authoritative sources, diff or proposal, checks, and non-goals. Ask it to find contradicted assumptions, missing evidence, boundary violations, and failure paths. Tie findings to sources or checks, then keep, change, remove, supersede, or rebuild the branch.
For a genuine human decision, resolve one dependent decision at a time:
- State the decision and why evidence cannot resolve it.
- Present two or three distinct options, including no change when meaningful.
- State impact, trade-offs, reversibility, evidence, and blast radius.
- Recommend one option with confidence and explicit assumptions.
- Make the veto boundary explicit: no dependent branch runs until the human accepts an option.
- Ask only this decision and wait.
- Continue only after the answer restores shared understanding.
Do not send discoverable facts back to a human as questions. Do not implement an unresolved branch. Proportional grilling is still required for every significant topic; narrow reversible work may close through grounding, self-review, and deterministic checks without a separate reviewer.
4. Persist Once
Update the smallest owning artifact:
- stable agent behavior -> concise agent instructions
- domain language or invariant -> domain context
- source or relationship routing -> context map
- accepted consequential trade-off -> ADR
- repeated probabilistic procedure -> Skill
- deterministic enforcement -> Hook, CI, test, or platform control
- durable evidence-backed observation -> learning log
Route portable public methods to their public upstream, shared non-public procedures to the private organization or team catalog, cross-repository policy to its coordinator, and product or service truth to the owning repository. Reference owners instead of copying the same learning across repositories.
5. Verify and Hand Off
- Re-state the resolved outcome, boundaries, decision owner, checks, and stop condition.
- Run the smallest relevant deterministic checks.
- Review the diff or decision against sources, scope, and non-goals.
- Keep a workflow human-in-the-loop until explicit scope, permissions, meaningful checks or evals, recovery, rollback, observability, and repeated evidence justify another oversight mode.
- Record the next re-check trigger only when future evidence could change the decision.
Complete the run only when every fact is grounded or marked as a source conflict, every decision is resolved or blocked, each change has one owner, verification is reported, and the oversight mode is explicit.
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.

