agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/cat-agent-skills/submissions/business-os/SKILL.md

business-os

Skill95 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Turns vague or complex business requests (decisions, problems, projects, incidents, processes, ideas, documents, communications) into a clear outcome, an appropriately sized plan, and a verified result. Also assesses whether repeated work should become a reusable Skill and can draft that Skill package. Use for business questions, tasks, decisions, problems, projects, incidents, process design, organisational planning, "figure this out" requests, or requests to turn a process into a Skill. Do not use for casual conversation, trivial rewrites, or work already covered by a more specific installed Skill.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 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.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use it for: business decisions, problems, projects, incidents, process design or improvement, ambiguous "sort this out" requests, business …

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not use it for: casual chat, a one-line factual lookup, a small rewrite or formatting request, or anything a more specific installed …

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not apply Deep-path rigour to Fast-path work, and do not give a shallow answer to a Deep-path problem.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Capture learning, if it's worth capturing: Only propose a playbook, template, or Skill candidate when the work is genuinely repeatable and …

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Never present an assumption as a fact.

    line 53
  6. Very specific:

    Never invent organisation-specific policy, approvals, people, dates, or tool results.

    line 54
  7. Distinctive:

    If a needed tool or piece of information genuinely isn't available, say so plainly and give the best next-best output rather than …

    line 56
  8. Very specific:

    If asked to turn a process into a Skill, or if repeated, stable, valuable work looks like a strong candidate, open …

    line 73

≈ “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.

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

Business OS

Business OS is an operating layer for business work. It works out what outcome is actually needed, picks a proportionate method, does what it can, and is honest about what it cannot verify. It also recognises when repeated work is a candidate for a reusable Skill.

When to use this Skill

Use it for: business decisions, problems, projects, incidents, process design or improvement, ambiguous "sort this out" requests, business communications and meeting outputs, and requests to turn a completed process into a Skill.

Do not use it for: casual chat, a one-line factual lookup, a small rewrite or formatting request, or anything a more specific installed Skill already handles well. For those, just do the task.

Operating loop

Work through these steps mentally for anything beyond a trivial request. Skip stages that add no value for the task at hand.

  1. Outcome - What result would count as success here? Is the stated request a proxy for a bigger need? Say the outcome back in one line before doing the work.
  2. Classify the work - Pick a primary type: question, task, decision, problem, project, incident, process, idea/opportunity, document, research, communication, review, strategy, or unknown (investigate until it's classifiable). Work is often hybrid; name a primary type and any secondary ones.
  3. Size the response - Judge reversibility, financial/legal/security exposure, number of stakeholders, and urgency. Choose:
    • Fast - simple, low-risk, obvious. Just do it.
    • Structured - needs a short plan, some evidence gathering, or a template.
    • Deep - high-impact, ambiguous, regulated, or multi-stage. Load the relevant reference(s) below. Do not apply Deep-path rigour to Fast-path work, and do not give a shallow answer to a Deep-path problem.
  4. Check what's known versus missing. Separate fact, retrieved evidence, user-supplied information, reasonable inference, and assumption. Only raise a question if answering it changes what you'd do next; otherwise proceed on a stated, labelled assumption.
  5. Do the work, pulling in one or two relevant references from below, not all of them.
  6. Verify - did the actual outcome from step 1 get met, not just "was an action taken"? State completion status plainly (complete, complete with caveats, partially complete, blocked, or needs a human decision).
  7. Capture learning, if it's worth capturing. Only propose a playbook, template, or Skill candidate when the work is genuinely repeatable and valuable, not after a one-off task.

Reference library

Load only the reference file(s) relevant to the work in front of you.

ReferenceLoad when
references/work-classification.mdThe request is ambiguous, or you need help sizing Fast/Structured/Deep, or the user says something like "figure this out"
references/executive-lenses.mdThe work benefits from more than one professional viewpoint (finance, operations, technology, security, legal, customer, people, risk)
references/decision-engine.mdThe work is a decision between options
references/problem-solving.mdThe work is a problem with an unclear cause
references/process-engine.mdThe work is about designing, mapping, or improving a business process
references/project-engine.mdThe work needs a plan with scope, milestones, dependencies and owners
references/incident-engine.mdSomething has gone wrong and needs stabilising, containing, and reviewing
references/communication-engine.mdThe output is a message, update, or meeting artefact
references/company-dna.mdYou need to represent or ask about organisation-specific policy, structure, or ways of working
references/memory-and-learning.mdSubstantial work has finished and reusable learning might exist
references/skill-generator.mdThe user wants to turn a process into a Skill, or repeated work looks like a strong Skill candidate
references/governance-evidence-qa.mdThe work involves a high-impact action, a confidence judgement, or a final quality check before handing something over

Evidence and honesty rules

  • Never present an assumption as a fact. Label assumptions.
  • Never invent organisation-specific policy, approvals, people, dates, or tool results. If you don't know the organisation's rule, say so and ask, or flag it as unknown in a Company DNA sense (see references/company-dna.md).
  • Distinguish drafting/recommending from doing. Do not treat permission to analyse as permission to send, commit, delete, or approve something irreversible.
  • If a needed tool or piece of information genuinely isn't available, say so plainly and give the best next-best output rather than pretending the action happened.

Output style

Default to concise, plain, and useful. Use structure (headings, short lists) when it aids clarity, not as a template you apply automatically every time. For substantial work, useful sections often include: outcome, what was found, recommendation, plan, risks or open decisions, next actions - but don't force all of them if they don't apply.

Anti-patterns to avoid

  • Turning a small task into a consulting engagement.
  • Asking questions before making any progress, when a labelled assumption would do.
  • Producing a risk register, stakeholder map, or 12-step plan for something that doesn't need one.
  • Claiming a task is done when it wasn't verified.
  • Loading every reference file for one request.
  • Treating one successful example as proof something is a mature, repeatable process.

Skill generation, briefly

If asked to turn a process into a Skill, or if repeated, stable, valuable work looks like a strong candidate, open references/skill-generator.md. It covers candidate assessment, the build pipeline, and the quality bar a generated Skill must meet, including the assets/templates/skill-specification.md and assets/templates/skill-candidate-assessment.md shapes.

Further reading

references/worked-examples.md shows short walk-throughs across the Fast, Structured and Deep paths, Figure It Out mode, and Skill generation. references/test-scenarios.md sets out expected behaviour for normal, edge and adversarial cases.

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.