amplifier-philosophy
Skill12 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Amplifier design philosophy using Linux kernel metaphor. Covers mechanism vs policy, module architecture, event-driven design, and kernel principles. Use when designing new modules or making architectural decisions.
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 77
When creating a new module:
- Distinctive: line 89
Ask: "Would every team use this the exact same way?"
- Distinctive: line 99
No opinion baked in
- Distinctive: line 105
Update spec, rebuild module: - Not line-by-line edits
- Distinctive: line 109
Ruthless simplicity: If two designs solve it, pick the one with fewer moving parts and clearer failure modes.
- Distinctive: line 113
Observability is mandatory: If it's not in the logs, it didn't happen.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Amplifier Philosophy: The Linux Kernel Metaphor
Core Principle: Mechanism Not Policy
If two teams might want different behavior, it belongs in a module, not the kernel.
The kernel provides mechanisms (mount, emit, dispatch). Modules provide policies (what to mount, when to emit, how to handle).
Architecture Patterns
Kernel (amplifier-core)
Keep it minimal and stable:
- Session management (
session_create,mount,unmount) - Event emission (
emit) - Hook registration
- Context access
Never add to kernel:
- Provider selection
- Tool routing
- Plan generation
- Default behaviors
- File I/O
Modules (Everything Else)
All capabilities as modules:
- Providers: LLM backends (Anthropic, OpenAI, Ollama)
- Tools: Capabilities (filesystem, bash, web)
- Orchestrators: Execution strategies
- Context Managers: State management
- Hooks: Lifecycle observers
Mount Point System
Think of modules as devices mounted at paths:
/mnt/providers/{name} - LLM backends
/mnt/tools/{name} - Agent capabilities
/mnt/hooks/{event} - Lifecycle observers
/mnt/context - Conversation state
/mnt/orchestrator - Execution loopEach mount point has a stable connector (Protocol interface).
Event-Driven Design
If it's important, emit an event:
session:start,session:endprompt:submit,prompt:completeprovider:request,provider:responsetool:pre,tool:postcontext:pre_compact,context:post_compact
Hooks observe, never interfere:
- Logging hooks record events
- Approval hooks check permissions
- Cost tracking hooks monitor usage
- Failures in hooks never stop execution
Module Development Checklist
When creating a new module:
- ✅ Implements Protocol only - No kernel internals
- ✅ Emits canonical events - Observable lifecycle
- ✅ Handles own failures - Never crash kernel
- ✅ Configuration via mount() - No hard-coded defaults
- ✅ Entry point registration - Discoverable
Decision Framework
Is This Kernel Work?
Ask: "Would every team use this the exact same way?"
- Yes → Might be kernel (rare)
- No → Definitely a module
Extract to Kernel?
Only after:
- Two real implementations exist
- Clear convergence on mechanism
- No opinion baked in
Prefer Regeneration
- Don't patch modules - Regenerate from spec
- Keep connectors stable - Module internals can change
- Update spec, rebuild module - Not line-by-line edits
Remember
Ruthless simplicity. If two designs solve it, pick the one with fewer moving parts and clearer failure modes.
Modules compete at edges. The kernel enables them, doesn't choose between them.
Observability is mandatory. If it's not in the logs, it didn't happen.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- microsoft/amplifier-module-tool-skills★ 8100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- module-developmentSkill
- python-standardsSkill
- adapt-skillSkill
- bet-sizerSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- council-hereSkill
- councilifySkill
- councilSkill
- cranky-old-samSkill
- create-demo-videoSkill
- crusty-old-engineerSkill
- engineering-patternsSkill
- image-visionSkill
- intent-keeperSkill
- mass-changeSkill
- monitorSkill
- outcome-cartographerSkill
- outcomistSkill
- personafySkill
- positioning-criticSkill
- product-council-hereSkill
- product-councilSkill
- restless-old-brianSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- second-opinionSkill
- session-debugSkill
- skillifySkill
- skills-assistSkill
- tester-breakerSkill
- user-advocateSkill
- verification-disciplineSkill
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.

