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
- Distinctive: line 12
Use it for: business decisions, problems, projects, incidents, process design or improvement, ambiguous "sort this out" requests, business …
- Distinctive: line 14
Do not use it for: casual chat, a one-line factual lookup, a small rewrite or formatting request, or anything a more specific installed …
- Distinctive: line 26
Do not apply Deep-path rigour to Fast-path work, and do not give a shallow answer to a Deep-path problem.
- Distinctive: line 30
Capture learning, if it's worth capturing: Only propose a playbook, template, or Skill candidate when the work is genuinely repeatable and …
- Distinctive: line 53
Never present an assumption as a fact.
- Very specific: line 54
Never invent organisation-specific policy, approvals, people, dates, or tool results.
- Distinctive: line 56
If a needed tool or piece of information genuinely isn't available, say so plainly and give the best next-best output rather than …
- Very specific: line 73
If asked to turn a process into a Skill, or if repeated, stable, valuable work looks like a strong candidate, open …
≈ “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
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Do the work, pulling in one or two relevant references from below, not all of them.
- 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).
- 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.
| Reference | Load when |
references/work-classification.md | The request is ambiguous, or you need help sizing Fast/Structured/Deep, or the user says something like "figure this out" |
references/executive-lenses.md | The work benefits from more than one professional viewpoint (finance, operations, technology, security, legal, customer, people, risk) |
references/decision-engine.md | The work is a decision between options |
references/problem-solving.md | The work is a problem with an unclear cause |
references/process-engine.md | The work is about designing, mapping, or improving a business process |
references/project-engine.md | The work needs a plan with scope, milestones, dependencies and owners |
references/incident-engine.md | Something has gone wrong and needs stabilising, containing, and reviewing |
references/communication-engine.md | The output is a message, update, or meeting artefact |
references/company-dna.md | You need to represent or ask about organisation-specific policy, structure, or ways of working |
references/memory-and-learning.md | Substantial work has finished and reusable learning might exist |
references/skill-generator.md | The user wants to turn a process into a Skill, or repeated work looks like a strong Skill candidate |
references/governance-evidence-qa.md | The 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.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- gwonvibe/gwonvibe-agent-skills★ 4same name
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 repository199 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- accessibility-passSkill
- acroform-writerSkill
- action-items-todoSkill
- agent-evaluation-designerSkill
- agent-harness-explorerSkill
- agent-performance-triageSkill
- agent-red-teamSkill
- ai-demo-assistantSkill
- ai-first-process-redesignSkill
- ai-usecase-assessmentSkill
- anonymised-case-study-writerSkill
- evidence-gatherSkill
- gap-checkSkill
- readiness-packSkill
- scope-mapSkill
- b2b-outreach-suiteSkill
- blog-content-auditorSkill
- blog-post-structure-passSkill
- booth-loop-videoSkill
- brand-template-enforcerSkill
- brand-voice-passSkill
- breathing-roomSkill
- browser-uat-analystSkill
- call-for-speakers-digestSkill
- campaign-deck-builderSkill
- chart-builderSkill
- classic-text-adventureSkill
- clipchamp-videoSkill
- clt-hr-assistantSkill
- commenting-contentSkill
- competitive-battlecard-builderSkill
- conditional-chat-reminderSkill
- conference-session-abstract-packSkill
- contradiction-flagSkill
- insight-briefSkill
- provenance-checkSkill
- research-retrieveSkill
- trend-compareSkill
- content-quality-auditorSkill
- copilot-agent-advisorSkill
- copilot-studio-adaptive-card-builderSkill
- copilot-studio-agent-testSkill
- copilot-studio-harness-pickerSkill
- copilot-studio-knowledge-readinessSkill
- copilot-studio-mcp-readinessSkill
- copilot-studio-topic-blueprintSkill
- cowork-plugin-engineerSkill
- cowork-use-case-one-pagerSkill
- create-copilot-adoption-dashboardSkill
- context-assembleSkill
- handoff-packetSkill
- inquiry-intakeSkill
- knowledge-retrieveSkill
- resolution-draftSkill
- doc-format-converterSkill
- bom-impactSkill
- ecn-draftSkill
- ecr-ingestSkill
- standards-checkSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

