cursor-blame
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Investigate how code was built with AI. Reveals which conversations produced the code, why it was implemented a certain way, what alternatives were considered, and the intent behind decisions. Use when the user asks about history, evolution, or authorship of code.
In this repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/base-rule.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/bash-style.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/groovy-implicit-return.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/groovy-style.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/markdown-style.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-style.mdcCursor rule
- automateSkill
- autopilotSkill
- canvasSkill
- create-hookSkill
- create-ruleSkill
- create-skillSkill
- create-subagentSkill
- git-messageSkill
- goalSkill
- loopSkill
- migrate-to-skillsSkill
- new-repoSkill
- onboardSkill
- originSkill
- rename-chatSkill
- review-bugbotSkill
- review-securitySkill
- reviewSkill
- sdkSkill
- shareSkill
- shellSkill
- split-to-prsSkill
- statuslineSkill
- update-cli-configSkill
- update-cursor-settingsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 16
When asking about why code was written a certain way
- Distinctive: line 17
When investigating the history of a file or function
- Distinctive: line 18
When understanding what alternatives were considered
- Distinctive: line 19
When tracing the evolution of a codebase
≈ “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
Cursor Blame
This skill helps you investigate the history and intent behind code changes made with AI assistance.
When to Use
- When asking about why code was written a certain way
- When investigating the history of a file or function
- When understanding what alternatives were considered
- When tracing the evolution of a codebase
How It Works
Cursor Blame correlates code with the AI conversations that produced it, providing:
- Conversation context and summaries
- Decision rationale and tradeoffs discussed
- Models used during development
- Timeline of changes
Usage
Simply ask questions like:
- "Why was this function implemented this way?"
- "What was the reasoning behind this architecture decision?"
- "Show me the history of changes to this file"
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.