project-work
Skill19 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use for repository health inspection, project summaries, documentation maintenance, release-readiness evidence, or bounded run-operation reports.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .agents/skills/domain-dag/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- domain-dagSkill
- actorsSkill
- artifactsSkill
- music-playerSkill
- recipe-memorySkill
- swarmSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
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
- Very specific: line 8
Use this Skill to produce bounded project evidence and plans.
- Very specific: line 25
Treat validation_command as trusted executable input.
- Very specific: line 37
Stop when repository scope, version, validation command, model policy, or write target is ambiguous.
≈ “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
Project Work
Use this Skill to produce bounded project evidence and plans. For generic Recipe execution, Run lifecycle, persistence, or multi-actor methodology, follow actors and, when applicable, swarm; this Skill only selects project workflows.
Choose the primary workflow
| Intended result | Recipe | Boundary |
| Repository status, recent history, docs surface, validation, and risks | project-work/repo-health | Runs the caller-supplied trusted validation command |
| Documentation consistency review and maintenance plan | project-work/docs-maintenance | Evidence and plan only; does not edit documentation |
| Multi-lens release verdict with blockers and degraded-confidence evidence | project-work/release-readiness | Readiness only; does not publish |
| Evidence-only release summary and PR-body draft | project-work/release-summary | No commit, PR, merge, tag, publish, or external release action |
| Bounded report over existing actor Run state | project-work/run-ops | Read-only report; does not send Control or mutate Runs |
Choose release-readiness when independent review and a release verdict are needed. Choose release-summary when the evidence is already sufficient and only a concise operator-gated summary is wanted. If one primary workflow should become a recurring named tool, use the persistent-capability workflow in actors; do not copy its composition.
Inputs and evidence
- Scope every workflow to the caller-selected repository, docs directory, or Run state.
- Treat
validation_commandas trusted executable input. Do not invent or broaden it. - Select current model policy explicitly for workflows that request a model; release-readiness reviewer roles inherit only the values supplied by the caller.
- Artifact paths identify intended report targets. Confirm actual declared artifact evidence before claiming a durable file.
- Preserve degraded or insufficient review status. Never turn partial reviewer output into consensus.
- Release outputs are evidence, not publication authority.
Supporting Recipes
git-status, git-log, changelog-head, changelog-section, markdown-index, package-summary, and skill-summary support the primary workflows. Use one directly only when its narrow deterministic output is the requested result; otherwise start from a primary workflow and avoid rebuilding its composition manually.
Stop rules
Stop when repository scope, version, validation command, model policy, or write target is ambiguous. Do not edit docs from a docs-maintenance plan, publish from release evidence, or send Run Controls from run-ops. Hand those operations to their owning protocol after explicit authorization.
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.

