init
Skill23 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use on the first substantive work in a project MasterMind isn't set up for yet, when the user says \"init\", \"initialize\", \"set up MasterMind\", \"onboard\", \"get me ready\", or when no field pack matches the project's detected stack.
137 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- naderelewa/Product-to-Prodtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ShahriarBijoy/show-me-howtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLStheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- BSSE23047/nauraiz-devtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- edwinidrus/dragonhoardtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- NilsHellwig/acl-paper-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval and 10 more.
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.
LambenthanSkilldaily-arxiv
每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkillexp-eval
实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges
Also in 5 projects that use this
skyllwtSkillexp-pilot-eval
Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.
Also in 4 projects that use this
skyllwtSkillexp-pilot-run
Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.
Also in 4 projects that use this
gaebalaiSkillcodex-system
PROACTIVELY consult Codex CLI, your highly capable supporter with exceptional reasoning and task completion abilities. Codex is a trusted expert you should ALWAYS consult BEFORE making decisions on: design choices, implementation approaches, debugging strategies, refactoring plans, or any non-trivial problem. When uncertain, consult Codex. Don't hesitate - Codex provides better analysis. Explicit triggers: "think deeper", "analyze", "second opinion", "consult codex".
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +6 more from Lambenthan
- +1 more from skyllwt
Other versions137 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 137
- microsoft/vscode★ 195ksame name
- mcollina/skills★ 2ksame name
- skyllwt/OmegaWiki★ 1.7ksame name
- DAIR-AutoResearch/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- PKU-DAIR/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- skyllwt/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- TokenRollAI/cc-plugin★ 483same name
- pipecat-ai/gradient-bang★ 420same name
- AlexPEClub/ai-coding-starter-kit★ 382same name
- dannysmith/tauri-template★ 312same name
127 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 repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- analyzeSkill
- assessSkill
- blueprintSkill
- breakdownSkill
- buildSkill
- checklistSkill
- clarifySkill
- constitutionSkill
- convergeSkill
- debugSkill
- deepenSkill
- deprecateSkill
- double-checkSkill
- explainSkill
- handoffSkill
- helpSkill
- interviewSkill
- learnSkill
- levelupSkill
- lintSkill
- living-docsSkill
- performanceSkill
- personaSkill
- promptSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qaSkill
- quarantineSkill
- reportSkill
- roadmapSkill
- routeSkill
- signatureSkill
- specifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 125 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Run once per project; if this project already built its field, you're set: skip this.
- Distinctive: line 71
If the user is eager to build *now*, start the first vertical slice on general judgment and run pack-bootstrap as an after-first-slice / …
- Distinctive: line 109
After the ready report, offer these once: both skippable, both default off:
- Very specific: line 119
Ask once and let it go: a shrug or silence defaults both off and you move straight on.
- Distinctive: line 124
Run once per project: check for a matching field pack first, and load it if one is already there.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 125 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
Initialize: get MasterMind ready for this project, fast
The goal: a new user goes from "installed" to "the brain is set up for my stack and knows what I'm building" in a few quick steps: a handoff, not an intake form. Detect what you can; ask the rest. Run once per project; if this project already built its field, you're set: skip this.
Nothing ships pre-baked. A fresh install carries only the engine and engineering/fields/_template/
no field, because a pack tuned to someone else's stack is worse than none (dead weight that misleads).
So init's core job is to build this project's field from the template, tuned to the real stack. This
is where the measured quality lift comes from; without it you still apply solid general judgment, but the
domain pack is the difference.
Keep it short (the #1 rule)
Detect before asking: read the answers out of the project, and make the technical calls yourself. A developed project needs zero questions: continue with its own stack. A greenfield project needs one open question ("what do you want to build?"), answered in their own words. The whole thing should feel like 20 seconds, then you're working.
Path A: the project already has code
- Detect the stack:
package.json/lockfile, configs, framework + versions, DB, test runner, folder shape (core/agent-loop.md). This is free, read it rather than asking. - Set up its field:
- This project already built a field that fits → load it. Done. (Nothing else ships, so this only happens on a re-run of a project that was set up before.)
- Otherwise: build one from
engineering/fields/_template/, tuned to the detected stack: a one-time bootstrap (levelup bootstrap), stated as a trade-off, not a menu: "a few minutes now makes me much sharper on your stack: its real defaults, pitfalls, and review rules. It's once per field, then reused for every task." Build it to fit one real stack, and keep it lean, tailoring prunes as much as it adds (active-field.md). Fill the pack's "Where things are" section from what step 1 already detected: the half-dozen entry-point pointers (components, routes, state, tests + run command, config, the one file that explains the architecture fastest). This is the narrow exception to "skip the directory listing" below: a full tree is re-derivable noise, but these few pointers are what stop every future task from re-running discovery. Then pointactive-field.mdat it and regenerate the router from the brain you are installed into:node .mastermind/scripts/build-router.mjsfor a per-project brain, the default. Under--sharedthe brain is the one in your home directory, so run that same script from there. A barescripts/…path is the project's own directory and fails with MODULE_NOT_FOUND.
- Fill the project brief (
.mastermind/brief.md). An isolated install seeds it; under--sharedthere is no project brain, so create the file yourself at that path. The field pack holds the stack; the brief holds this project: what it is, the words it uses for its own ideas, what breaks and who feels it, what cannot be undone here, and how it ships. Most of it comes from step 1. Ask the user only for what the code cannot tell you, which is usually who feels an outage and which actions are irreversible. Keep it under about 40 lines: it is read every session. This is what stops a change that is technically correct and operationally wrong. - Respect the project: match its conventions and keep the stack it already chose
(
stack-defaults.md: the project wins).
Path B: greenfield (empty folder / nothing built yet)
Nothing to detect, so ask one open question, in the user's own words rather than a menu of stack options:
"What do you want to build?"
Let them describe it freely: a product, an app, a feature, technical or not. Then read their answer:
- They named the tech (a framework, language, database) → use it.
- They only described the product → assume they may not be an engineer, and make the stack call for them. You choose the architecture and tech stack that best fit what they described. That's the prime directive (decide for them), then state the choice with a one-line why and proceed without pausing: "I'll build this as Next.js + Postgres: best fit for a realtime habit tracker." (If they later want something different, they'll say so.)
Then set up the field pack(s) for that stack, load or bootstrap all it needs (a real app needs
frontend + backend: UI and auth/tenancy/data/jobs). Offer to scaffold the starting point
(repo/toolchain/env), then hand to build / architect for the first slice.
The first result comes before setup finishes
If the user is eager to build now, start the first vertical slice on general judgment and run pack-bootstrap as an after-first-slice / background step: a multi-minute research detour waits its turn behind their first working result.
Show the plan before you write the pack
Building a field takes minutes of research and lands real files, so let the user see it as a proposal first: a few lines, not a document:
Detected: Next.js 15 · React 19 · TypeScript · Postgres/Prisma · Vitest
I'll build a `frontend` field with: stack defaults for this exact combination ·
review rules for React 19 · an empty lessons file that fills as we work.
Starting now: say the word if the stack reading is off.State it and proceed; this announces rather than asks. It costs one line and catches the one failure worth catching: a wrong stack reading becoming a pack that's subtly wrong about everything.
Store only what can't be re-derived: plus the pack's few "Where things are" entry-point pointers (step 2's named exception). Skip the full directory listing and the dependency list, the model can read those any time. Keep the pitfalls, the non-obvious conventions, and the decisions someone would otherwise have to rediscover.
Always end with a short report
Both paths finish with a ~5-line report so the setup is visible and the user knows what's ready:
▸ MasterMind ready
stack: Next.js 15 · React 19 · Postgres/Prisma (detected)
fields: frontend + backend (built from _template for your stack)
conventions: matched your existing style
next: tell me what to build, I'll run the build loop.Then proceed straight into their actual task: the report is a line you pass through, not a checkpoint.
Optional preferences: offer once, then remember
After the ready report, offer these once: both skippable, both default off:
"Two optional preferences, both off by default. I'll remember your answers: (1) a short written report at the end of each build/QA cycle? (markdown / html) (2) plan-first: on bigger tasks, should I show the plan and wait for your OK before editing?"
Record the answers in .mastermind/prefs.md, seeded by an isolated install and created by you
under --shared, one line each. Both preferences are defined by
their implementations, skills/build/SKILL.md (plan-first gate) and skills/report/SKILL.md
(cycle-report values); read those for the exact keys and accepted values rather than restating them here.
Ask once and let it go: a shrug or silence defaults both off and you move straight on. They can change
either anytime ("reports on", "plan first from now on"). (Keep it to this single light offer: one ask,
then work.)
Gotchas
- Run once per project: check for a matching field pack first, and load it if one is already there.
- One open question, kept open-ended: greenfield asks only "what do you want to build?"; if the user isn't technical, you pick the stack (decide for them), state it, and move, the choice is yours to make.
- Full-stack means both packs: the classic failure is a polished UI on an unguarded backend; load the backend pack whenever auth/data/tenancy/billing are in scope.
- This sets up knowledge, not your repo's config, repo edits happen only as part of doing the task.
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.

