agentleFS
odinfreeodinfree/storm-ecdsa-harness/skills/mission-command/SKILL.md

mission-command

Skill4 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub

Run a bounded technical mission with commander's intent, exact authority and artifact binding, one accountable owner, freedom of action inside stated limits, and a falsifiable ADMIT, COMPLETE or HARD_NACK closeout. Use when someone asks for mission command, hands over a stalled or complex engineering or research effort, or needs several workers coordinated without duplicate work or new authority.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

23 rules. About 0 are common, 22 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈22

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Prefer one decisive falsifier or proof artifact over broad activity.

    line 23
  2. Distinctive:

    Treat provider use, spend, network actions, submission, pushing, and other external-state changes as separate authorities.

    line 25
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep credentials, tokens, private provider output, and other secrets out of orders, evidence, command output, and mailbox records.

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not use military phrasing to bypass safety, repository policy, or the user's literal resource and numeric bounds.

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    Before issuing an order:

    line 34
  6. Distinctive:

    Read every named handover, policy, and AGENTS.md in its required order.

    line 36
  7. Distinctive:

    Verify drift-prone facts directly.

    line 39
  8. Distinctive:

    Write three compact elements:

    line 51
  9. Distinctive:

    stop, escalation, and stale-dependency triggers.

    line 72
  10. Distinctive:

    Never silently convert a read-only mission into implementation, an implementation mission into execution, or a local mission into provider …

    line 77
  11. Distinctive:

    Use additional workers only when the user or repository policy authorizes them and their work is independent.

    line 87
  12. Distinctive:

    Do not spawn a reviewer merely to reproduce discovery.

    line 90
  13. Distinctive:

    Start with the cheapest decisive check.

    line 96
  14. Distinctive:

    Keep source, generated artifacts, runtime evidence, and claims traceable.

    line 97
  15. Distinctive:

    Test the first falsifier before expanding effort.

    line 98
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not broaden the family, range, worker count, or resource class because the first approach is difficult.

    line 100
  17. Distinctive:

    If a command or mailbox post fails, correct it transparently without erasing history.

    line 102
  18. Distinctive:

    Use one of these outcomes:

    line 111
  19. Distinctive:

    BLOCKED: use only when the platform's blocked threshold is genuinely met.

    line 119
  20. Very specific:

    Do not report HARD_NACK for timeout, missing evidence, a broken unrelated test, or an ambiguous lifetime.

    line 122
  21. Distinctive:

    Write a durable evidence artifact when repository policy supports one.

    line 139
  22. Distinctive:

    Verify the wrapper accepted the intended nonempty payload and inspect only a bounded mailbox tail when confirmation is needed.

    line 142
  23. Distinctive:

    Keep the final response self-contained: verdict first, decisive evidence, artifact link/hash, gate state, and next authorized action or …

    line 148

≈ “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

Mission Command

Turn an ambiguous or stalled objective into one executable mission. Preserve initiative inside the user's authority while making scope expansion impossible without a new order.

A mission order records and narrows existing authority; it never creates new authority. If the user asks only to frame, draft, or issue an order, stop after the order. Execute the phase only when the user asks to run, do, begin, or continue the mission and the actions are already authorized.

Operating principles

  • Lead with purpose, key task, and desired end state.
  • Bind decisions to current evidence, not stale narrative.
  • Give one owner the ball. Park other roles unless a distinct review gate opens.
  • State what the owner may decide without asking again.
  • Prefer one decisive falsifier or proof artifact over broad activity.
  • Close the precise candidate or family tested; never generalize beyond evidence.
  • Treat provider use, spend, network actions, submission, pushing, and other external-state changes as separate authorities.
  • Keep credentials, tokens, private provider output, and other secrets out of orders, evidence, command output, and mailbox records.
  • Do not use military phrasing to bypass safety, repository policy, or the user's literal resource and numeric bounds.

1. Orient from authoritative state

Before issuing an order:

  1. Read every named handover, policy, and AGENTS.md in its required order.
  2. Inspect the live repository path, branch or detached commit, worktree status, active dispatch, gates, worker inventory, and submission policy when present.
  3. Verify drift-prone facts directly. Hash exact artifacts that will govern the mission and timestamp the live check.
  4. Preserve dirty trees and unrelated work. Do not resurrect stale workers or duplicate an active owner.
  5. Identify the most recent authoritative milestone and any dependency that the local policy considers stale.

Give the user a concise orientation before lengthy work. Distinguish confirmed facts, inferences, and unresolved conflicts.

2. Form commander's intent

Write three compact elements:

  • Purpose: why this mission has to happen now.
  • Key task: the single result to produce.
  • End state: the observable condition that ends the mission.

The key task must have an exact bound: time, numeric range, artifact count, build count, file scope, or a combination. If no safe bound can be inferred, stop and request one.

3. Bind the mission

Record:

  • activity and authorization;
  • authoritative repository, commit/tree, route, and artifact hashes;
  • allowed owner, supporting roles, compute, tools, and external resources;
  • numeric and artifact bounds;
  • current gate and submission state;
  • allowed actions and explicit prohibitions;
  • required evidence and terminal verdict;
  • stop, escalation, and stale-dependency triggers.

Use references/mission-order-template.md when a durable order or handoff is needed.

Never silently convert a read-only mission into implementation, an implementation mission into execution, or a local mission into provider or submission work.

4. Assign roles and decision rights

Choose exactly one ball owner for the current phase. Give that owner freedom to select inspection methods and make reversible in-scope choices. Define which events require escalation.

Use additional workers only when the user or repository policy authorizes them and their work is independent. Assign supporting roles to a later, nonduplicate gate such as provenance review, mutation testing, or receipt verification. Do not spawn a reviewer merely to reproduce discovery.

5. Execute one bounded phase

Work until the phase reaches its evidence condition or a stop trigger fires.

  • Start with the cheapest decisive check.
  • Keep source, generated artifacts, runtime evidence, and claims traceable.
  • Test the first falsifier before expanding effort.
  • Report concise progress during tool work.
  • Do not broaden the family, range, worker count, or resource class because the first approach is difficult.
  • If a command or mailbox post fails, correct it transparently without erasing history.

For long-running fleet work, obey the repository's cadence for gate refresh, housekeeping, handoffs, and stale dependencies. Unchanged state is not evidence of progress.

6. Decide from evidence

Use one of these outcomes:

  • ADMIT: the candidate clears every stated admission gate and earns only the explicitly named next phase.
  • COMPLETE: the requested end state is fully achieved and no required work remains.
  • HARD_NACK: a decisive witness disproves the precise candidate or family inside the stated model and bound.
  • BLOCKED: use only when the platform's blocked threshold is genuinely met; name the missing authority, artifact, or external-state change.

Do not report HARD_NACK for timeout, missing evidence, a broken unrelated test, or an ambiguous lifetime. Do not report ADMIT from projected savings alone when correctness, provenance, accounting, or replay remains unproven.

There is no fixed elapsed-time limit for research or technical execution. Elapsed time alone never makes a worker, dependency, or lane stale and never justifies a terminal verdict. A monitoring cadence may trigger a status request, evidence checkpoint, owner review, or explicit reassignment, but the existing owner retains the ball until command revokes or transfers it. Close a lane only from a predeclared falsifier, an evidence-backed blocker, source supersession, owner revocation, or the owner's terminal artifact.

Quantify the outcome: affected count, projected or measured deltas, peak resource use, artifact hash, and exact falsifier. Keep submission state explicit.

7. Close and hand off

  1. Write a durable evidence artifact when repository policy supports one.
  2. Hash it and verify the intended diff or read-only scope.
  3. Post one bounded mailbox record through the named wrapper if present. Verify the wrapper accepted the intended nonempty payload and inspect only a bounded mailbox tail when confirmation is needed.
  4. State what did not occur: source edit, build, provider, GPU, network, range, benchmark, push, or submission, as applicable.
  5. Open a follow-on phase only when the verdict authorizes it. Otherwise stop.

Keep the final response self-contained: verdict first, decisive evidence, artifact link/hash, gate state, and next authorized action or stop.

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.