agentleFS
opascopeopascope/skills/define-done/SKILL.md

define-done

Skill0 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub

Turn a sprawling problem into one end-state sentence you can check as true or false. Use when asked to define done, state the objective, say what solved looks like, or specify a completion condition. Produces the objective, not the implementation.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions3 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 3

    1. walidboulanouar/define-done★ 9same name
    2. wakqasahmed/ai-engineering-workflow-skills★ 2same name
    3. wakqasahmed/skills★ 2same 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 repository9 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    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. Very specific:

    Read shared.md first. Save the result with kind objective.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Write one sentence: "This is solved when ..." Describe the observable world after the work, not "we build", "we create" or "we implement".

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Test the proxy trap: could every clause be true while the original pain remains?

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Stop at the requested altitude.

    line 27
  5. Distinctive:

    Read references/proofs.md for that path.

    line 30
  6. Distinctive:

    If the user asks for steps, pass the objective to planning.

    line 41

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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

Define done for an AI coding task

Read shared.md first. Save the result with kind objective.

The deliverable is the sentence that means the user's pain is gone. Do not jump from the problem to a feature or implementation plan.

  1. Mirror the problem in the user's terms, including its tension. Gather only missing context that would change the objective.
  2. Write one sentence: "This is solved when ..." Describe the observable world after the work, not "we build", "we create" or "we implement". Split distinct problems into separate objectives rather than joining unrelated goals.
  3. Try to falsify each clause. Replace words such as "better" or "streamlined" with observable behavior. Ask what evidence would yield a clear yes or no.
  4. Test the proxy trap: could every clause be true while the original pain remains? If so, put the missing pain into the objective.
  5. Stop at the requested altitude. Default: an alignment sentence, saved with a short explanation of the pain and the falsifiability test. On a request for measurable verification, add artifact pointers and a proof per clause. Read references/proofs.md for that path.

Example: "Create a searchable folder" describes a solution. "This is solved when a reader can find each note from its topic, and every original note is preserved byte-for-byte" describes the end state. Counting an index file alone would miss both retrieval and preservation.

An objective can name a future output. Mark it as expected, verify the parent and inputs now, and identify the later command that proves the output. Never claim a future pointer already resolves.

If the user asks for steps, pass the objective to planning. If they ask for unattended execution, pass it to loop-builder. Alignment alone does not trigger either workflow. Return the sentence and its artifact path.

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.