agentleFS
mrzlimrzli/skills/skills/conversation/recap/SKILL.md

recap

Skill0 starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub

Summarize where the current work or discussion stands, including decisions, open questions, and what is done or remaining. Use when the user asks to recap, relist, reiterate, or catch up on what was discussed or what is left, asks for the status or where things stand, wants a recap of one topic, asks only for what is waiting on them, such as what they need to answer or do, or asks only for the progress of queued work, such as what is done and what remains or how long the rest will take.

44 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use orchestrate, explain and 5 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.
  • varun29ankuSSkill

    orchestrate

    This skill should be used when the user asks to 'orchestrate a task', 'break down work into parallel agents', 'coordinate subtasks', 'run agents in parallel', or mentions 'multi-agent'. Decomposes complex tasks into tracked subtasks, dispatches parallel subagents, and coordinates until completion.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • sunnyclinches44Skill

    explain

    Explains code using real-world analogies and ASCII diagrams

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    build

    Build the TypeSpec Rust emitter from source. Run this after cloning the repo, after pulling changes, or when TypeScript source files have been modified.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • nicolasestremSkill

    brainstorm

    Structured idea generation and solution exploration with systematic analysis.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • BlockSkill

    plan

    Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    commit

    Create commit messages following Sentry conventions. Use when committing code changes, writing commit messages, or formatting git history. Follows conventional commits with Sentry-specific issue references.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 38 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    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 the argument to narrow the scope.

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    When the argument asks for it, such as mine or pending, or the user asks only for what waits on them, such as "list everything I need to …

    line 35
  3. Distinctive:

    Leave out decisions already made, finished work, and background.

    line 41
  4. Very specific:

    When the argument asks for it, such as progress, or the user asks only for the progress of queued work, such as "what's done and what …

    line 45

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 38 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.

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

Bring the user up to date so they can continue without rereading the conversation. Assume they have not read anything since their last message.

Gather the state

Use the argument to narrow the scope. Otherwise cover the whole effort under discussion, not just the latest batch.

Read the existing specification, design record, plan, progress record, or task list when one exists, such as a .scratch/delivery/ queue file or the project's backlog. Combine it with what was raised, agreed, rejected, deferred, or dropped in the conversation. Check the repository state, such as branches, commits, and the working tree, where status depends on it. Report from evidence, not intent.

Report

Choose the parts that fit the scope, omitting empty ones. A discussion of a design usually needs its decisions and open questions. A backlog usually needs item status.

  • Current state of the topic: what was decided and how the pieces fit, in plain words. Restate content the user may have skimmed rather than only pointing to it.
  • Rejected options, briefly, when they explain a decision.
  • Open questions, with the options and your recommendation.
  • Waiting on the user: decisions, approvals, or actions only they can take, including ones raised before their last message. Leave out choices the user has accepted, as the user's rules for approval say. Without such rules, keep every choice until the user answers it.
  • Item status, grouped as:
    • Done, with the merge or commit state.
    • In progress, including unmerged branches and work awaiting review.
    • Remaining, in recommended order with blockers.
    • Dropped or deferred, only when the user decided this.

Keep each item short, and keep the identifiers already in use. Give each item listed by number or ID a description of a few words, so the user can tell what it is about without asking. Mark decisions and items found only in the conversation, not in a written record. Flag anything whose status is uncertain.

End with the recommended next step. Update an existing record only if the user asks.

Waiting on the user only

When the argument asks for it, such as mine or pending, or the user asks only for what waits on them, such as "list everything I need to answer", report only:

  • Answers needed: each open question, choice, or approval waiting on the user, with its ID, a few words saying what it is, and the recommended option. Put first what blocks the most work.
  • Things to do: actions only the user can take, such as pushing, running a command, or discussing in a fork.
  • Running: at most one line naming what is in progress, so the user knows it needs nothing from them.

Leave out decisions already made, finished work, and background. This is the "Waiting on the user" part of the report alone, with the same rules for IDs and accepted choices, plus the running line. End with the recommended next step.

Progress only

When the argument asks for it, such as progress, or the user asks only for the progress of queued work, such as "what's done and what remains" or "how long will it take", report only:

  • Done: each finished item of the queue or queues, one line each with its ID, a few words, and how long it took from its start to its integration.
  • Running: each item in progress, with how long it has run and its estimated time left.
  • Remaining: the items not yet started, in the order they will start, one line each with an estimate.
  • May be added: work that waits to be slotted in, such as a design still being discussed in a fork, with its estimate when known.
  • Totals: the work time, which adds up the items' times, and the wait time, which is the clock time with items running at once. Leave work that may be added out of the totals, and give its estimates beside them. Give both the work time and the wait time for each of these:
    • For the finished work, whose wait time runs from the first start to the last integration.
    • For the running and remaining work, whose wait time runs until the queue is done, given how many items run at once. Count only the time left for running items.

Base each estimate on the measured times of earlier items of similar size, such as those recorded in a queue file. Say when there are too few measurements and an estimate is a guess. When the argument names one queue, report only that queue. Follow the same rules for IDs as the full report. End with the next step that needs the user, if there is one.

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.