cross-harness-sub-agent
Skill3 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
spawn a cross harness sub-agent
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-browser-diffSkill
- ai-code-review-catalogSkill
- claude-parallel-writersSkill
- helper-sub-agentsSkill
- llm-evaluationSkill
- loopSkill
- orchestrate-multi-pr-workSkill
- planSkill
- propose-refactorSkill
- prSkill
- record-videoSkill
- triaging-feedbackSkill
- upgrade-dependenciesSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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 13
never use this for same harness sub-agents
≈ “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.
Files
route
- from codex, follow claude-subagent.md
- from claude code, follow codex-subagent.md
- from another harness, try claude code first, fallback to codex if it failed
- the calling agent invokes the selected route directly
- an explicit user target, model or effort wins
- never use this for same harness sub-agents
checkout
<checkout> is an absolute path you reuse literally in every later command:
- current checkout: the output of
git rev-parse --show-toplevel - separate worktree: the last output line of
bin/wt-run HEAD -- pwd
max 1 writer per checkout
task
give the sub-agent a self-contained prompt with the objective, scope, completion condition, edit permission and any context it can't discover
require the sub-agent to read ~/.agents/AGENTS.md when present and applicable repository/project AGENTS.md before starting
unless the user gives another review scope, compare the current branch with origin/develop and include committed branch changes plus staged, unstaged and untracked changes
for an exact-SHA read-only review, stop once the evidence supports a verdict; require the final report to include the reviewed SHA, compact read-only verification evidence, and either concrete file:line findings with the smallest remedy or a verdict line containing exactly NO_ISSUES_FOUND
for read-only reviews, require the report as the final response; the launcher persists it, so the reviewer needs no file writes
require no further cross-harness delegation, and a token-efficient verification command for you to run
for a direct cli route, pick a short unique <slug> and write the exact task with the file-writing tool to <checkout>/playground/cross-harness/<slug>-prompt.md (<prompt-file>). create its parent directory in a separate call. retain <checkout>, <slug> and <prompt-file> until completion; files under playground/ stay out of git
misc
read troubleshooting.md if something goes wrong
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.

