agentleFS
luisgui1757luisgui1757/sentinel/skills/modernize/SKILL.md

modernize

Skill0 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub

For getting old prs up to date. Use when asked to rebase a pr or "modernize".

11 other projects use a version of this, 5 of them edited; 2 new projects in the last 4 weeks, against 0 the 4 before.

Adopted by

Surging: 2 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 1 new projectWeek of Nov 1: 1 new project
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 2 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use takeover and unslop.

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.
  • assisjpSkill

    takeover

    Take over an existing branch, pull request, worktree, or agent handoff while preserving the original goal, contributor credit, and concurrent work. Use when the user asks to take over, finish, rescue, or continue someone else's implementation. Do not use to replace a clear request to start new work.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • photon-groveSkill

    unslop

    Detects and rewrites generic, overly polished, or AI-sounding prose while preserving meaning. Use when the user asks to "unslop", humanize, de-AI, tighten, or review whether writing sounds generated.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 4 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 4

    Common

    Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Always check to make sure you have pulled latest origin for your branch, main branch, and any other branch related to your work before …

    line 15
  2. Common:

    Treat existing worktree changes as user-owned.

    line 17
  3. Very specific:

    Never use an unqualified force push.

    line 21
  4. Very specific:

    Do not post a PR comment unless the user asked for one.

    line 23
  5. Common:

    Look beyond overlapping lines:

    line 44
  6. Common:

    Do both sides now claim ownership of the same behavior or invariant?

    line 48
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not describe a PR as current merely because Git reports no conflicts.

    line 54
  8. Distinctive:

    Use one of these recommendations:

    line 58
  9. Common:

    Create a safe local branch or disposable worktree at the recorded PR head.

    line 76
  10. Distinctive:

    Run the repository's focused checks for the touched area.

    line 84
  11. Distinctive:

    If the lease fails, fetch and reassess rather than overwriting new work.

    line 87
  12. Distinctive:

    Do not merge the PR.

    line 89

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Modernize

Modernize the idea, not just the branch. A clean rebase does not prove that the PR still belongs in the product.

Guardrails

  • Always check to make sure you have pulled latest origin for your branch, main branch, and any other branch related to your work before starting.
  • Treat existing worktree changes as user-owned. Use a disposable worktree when the active worktree is dirty or is being used for other work.
  • Modernizing authorizes rebasing and updating the PR branch. It does not authorize merging, closing, changing the base branch, or expanding scope.
  • Never use an unqualified force push. Update a rebased branch with --force-with-lease against the head SHA observed before the rebase.
  • Do not post a PR comment unless the user asked for one. Use the leaving-pr-comments skill for every comment posted on the user's behalf.

Establish the PR's intent

Resolve the PR and record its URL, state, base, head repository and branch, current head SHA, author, checks, and review state. Read the title, body, linked issues, commits, review threads, and complete diff. State the smallest coherent goal the PR was trying to accomplish before judging its implementation.

Fetch the latest remote base and PR head. Use the PR's actual base branch, usually main, rather than assuming the local branch is current. Record the merge base so the original PR and subsequent base-branch changes can be compared separately.

Check what changed around it

Inspect commits and diffs added to the base branch since the PR diverged. Search merged and open PRs when titles, code paths, or behavior suggest a replacement or competing implementation.

Look beyond overlapping lines:

  • Has the same user-facing problem already been solved?
  • Did APIs, types, schemas, dependencies, or architectural boundaries change?
  • Do both sides now claim ownership of the same behavior or invariant?
  • Was the code being changed deleted, moved, or intentionally simplified?
  • Would landing the PR restore an old behavior or create two ways to do the same thing?
  • Is the original benefit still large enough to justify the maintenance cost?

Do not describe a PR as current merely because Git reports no conflicts.

Choose a disposition before pushing

Use one of these recommendations:

  • MODERNIZE: the goal is still useful and the implementation remains the right shape. Rebase, resolve conflicts, test, and update the branch.
  • REWORK: the goal is still useful, but a mechanical rebase would preserve the wrong implementation. Explain the smallest credible rewrite and stop before pushing unless the user also asked for that rework.
  • CLOSE: the PR is superseded, obsolete, directionally wrong, or no longer worth its cost. Cite concrete evidence and stop. Do not spend time rebasing an obsolete branch, and do not close it without explicit permission.

Be willing to recommend CLOSE. Age alone is not evidence, and sunk effort is not a reason to keep a PR alive.

Rebase without losing intent

For a MODERNIZE disposition:

  1. Create a safe local branch or disposable worktree at the recorded PR head.
  2. Rebase its commits onto the freshly fetched base branch.
  3. Resolve each conflict according to the PR's current intent and the base branch's newer invariants. If a conflict reveals a product or architecture disagreement, stop and reconsider the disposition instead of guessing.
  4. Compare the pre-rebase and post-rebase commit series with git range-diff and inspect the final diff. Confirm that no intentional behavior disappeared and no already-landed behavior was reintroduced.
  5. Run the repository's focused checks for the touched area. Distinguish real failures from pre-existing or infrastructure failures.
  6. Push with --force-with-lease tied to the previously observed remote head. If the lease fails, fetch and reassess rather than overwriting new work.

Do not merge the PR.

Report

Lead with MODERNIZE, REWORK, or CLOSE and the reason. Then summarize:

  • meaningful changes on the base branch;
  • conceptual conflicts or confirmation that none were found;
  • the rebase and push result, if performed;
  • checks run and their results;
  • the remaining decision or work, with a link to the PR.

Separate observed facts from judgment. Say what could not be verified instead of manufacturing confidence.

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.