agentleFS
n-n-coden-n-code/n-n-code-skills/.agents/skills/project-vendor-boundary/SKILL.md

project-vendor-boundary

Skill4 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub

Project overlay for checked-in or submodule-managed third-party source, provenance, local patches, and the app-owned integration seam. Not for package-manager dependency changes without vendored source.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not use this for ordinary package-manager version or lockfile changes with no checked-in third-party source, app-owned code unrelated to …

    line 23
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer an adapter or wrapper change in app-owned code when the integration seam can reasonably absorb it.

    line 36
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep vendor patches minimal.

    line 39
  4. Distinctive:

    Update notices, provenance, upstream version, local patch records, install rules, or shipped metadata only when the vendor change affects …

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Treat fetching or replacing upstream source, moving a submodule, and filing an upstream issue or contribution as separate actions with …

    line 49

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 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

Project Vendor Boundary

This is a composable project overlay. Add matching implementation guidance when the work requires language-specific code judgment.

For review, inspect provenance, local patches, and integration behavior without updating, fetching, or replacing the vendor tree. During implementation, preserve pre-existing local changes and apply only the requested integration or update.

When to use

The change involves checked-in third-party source, a subtree or submodule, a vendor directory, copied sources, a local vendor patch, or the app-owned adapter around that material.

Not for

Do not use this for ordinary package-manager version or lockfile changes with no checked-in third-party source, app-owned code unrelated to the integration seam, or generated outputs that must be changed through their generator. Use project-release-maintainer for release concerns and compose it only when a vendor change also affects shipped metadata. Use security first when exploit review is the primary job.

Workflow

  1. Classify the material before editing: app-owned source, checked-in vendor source, submodule, generated output, or package-managed dependency. Read the repository's update instructions, provenance record, patch convention, and license or notice files when they exist.
  2. Prefer an adapter or wrapper change in app-owned code when the integration seam can reasonably absorb it. Patch vendor source only when the seam cannot solve the problem without distorting the app contract.
  3. Keep vendor patches minimal. Avoid unrelated formatting, generated churn, mass mechanical rewrites, or local style normalization inside the vendor tree. Record the upstream source or base version and patch rationale using the repository's existing convention.
  4. Validate the app-owned seam and the narrowest relevant vendor build or test path the repo supports. Inspect the final diff for accidental vendor churn.
  5. Update notices, provenance, upstream version, local patch records, install rules, or shipped metadata only when the vendor change affects them; do not rewrite these files for an app-only adapter change.

Treat fetching or replacing upstream source, moving a submodule, and filing an upstream issue or contribution as separate actions with their own network and external side effects. Do not edit generated vendor artifacts manually when a documented regeneration path owns them.

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.