agentleFS
preetamnathpreetamnath/agent-skills/skills/find-gaps/SKILL.md

find-gaps

Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Surface what a draft, answer, or code is missing — parallel subagents each apply a different lens, scoring findings by impact and confidence, then walk them one at a time. TRIGGER when: user says 'find gaps', 'what did I miss', 'analyze from multiple angles', 'what am I overlooking'; user has an in-progress artifact and an open-ended mandate to improve it. SKIP when: building one answer (best-answer); trust-checking an answer you have (validate-answer).

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    NOT this if you want one synthesized answer → best-answer.

    line 14
  2. Very specific:

    NOT this if you want a yes/no trust signal on an answer you have → validate-answer.

    line 15
  3. Very specific:

    NOT this if you're grading one concrete proposal → second-opinion.

    line 16
  4. Distinctive:

    Count: default 3–5 lenses; scale up only for a broad audit.

    line 23
  5. Distinctive:

    Dependency override: if acting on one finding invalidates a later one, walk it first.

    line 51

≈ “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

Find Gaps

Surface what an in-progress artifact is missing — many parallel lenses, scored findings, walked one at a time.

When to use

You have a draft, answer, or code and want to surface what you missed — blind spots, risks, overlooked angles.

  • NOT this if you want one synthesized answer → best-answer.
  • NOT this if you want a yes/no trust signal on an answer you have → validate-answer.
  • NOT this if you're grading one concrete proposal → second-opinion.

Steps

Step 1 — Frame and derive lenses

  • Derive lenses from the artifact's risk surface — orthogonal angles that together cover what could be wrong or improvable (for a skill: resumability, failure-modes, coherence-with-siblings, UX; for a spec: scope, architecture, edge cases). One lens per subagent; merge near-duplicates — overlap re-raises one finding and wastes the fan-out. Every run also carries one standing lens: unstated assumptions — what the artifact treats as settled but never justifies.
  • Count: default 3–5 lenses; scale up only for a broad audit. If the user named the exact lenses, honor them and skip the checkpoint; if partial, honor those and fill any gap.
  • Checkpoint: print the lens list (one line each) and confirm via AskUserQuestion ("Run these" / "Adjust").

Step 2 — Dispatch

  • Readers: R0 (you, concurrent) hunts what no derived lens covers — cross-cutting gaps and whole categories the lens list missed — and returns findings under the same return contract; R1…RN are parallel general-purpose subagents, one focused lens each.
  • Prompt (per lens): artifact path(s), the lens and what it must scrutinize, and the return contract.
  • Return contract: finding · recommended action · reasoning (pro/con) — whichever are relevant — plus two scores, always: impact — render Label (value): Minimal (0.25) · Low (0.5) · Medium (1) · High (2) · Massive (3) — and confidence (0.00–1.00).

Step 3 — Synthesize, band, and triage

  • Dedup across lenses: the same finding raised by two lenses is one row — keep the max confidence as its confidence c.
  • Band each finding by c — the bands are a cost lever, floor at 0.70: <!-- source: references/confidence-bands.md#mode-f -->
    • keep (no triage) — c ≥ 0.80.
    • triage — 0.70 ≤ c < 0.80.
    • drop — c < 0.70.
    <!-- /source: references/confidence-bands.md#mode-f -->
  • When the triage band has findings, invoke the triage skill via the Skill tool once, passing each banded finding (id = finding #, claim = the finding text) plus the artifact path(s); an empty band loads nothing. Route the returned verdicts:
    • consider → walk · skip → park (show in the table, walk only if asked).
  • Table (walk set + parked skips):
#FindingLens(es)Recommended actionImpactVerdictConf.
1…resumability, failure-modes…High (2)consider0.xx

Verdict is consider/skip for triaged rows, — for the c ≥ 0.80 keep band. Conf. is adjusted_confidence where triage ran, else c.

  • Order the walk set by confidence descending.
  • Dependency override: if acting on one finding invalidates a later one, walk it first.
  • Dropped (c < 0.70): one line each — finding · lens(es) · c.

Step 4 — Walk findings one at a time

For each walk finding (keep band or triage consider, confidence descending; then parked findings if the user asks):

  • Present each in this shape:
**Gap [#] — [lens(es)]:**
- Finding: [what's missing]
- Action: [recommended action]
- Impact: [Label (value)] · Conf: [0.xx]
- Triage: [verdict — reason]
- Span: "[quoted artifact text]"

(Omit the Triage line when triage didn't run on this finding; omit Span when the finding isn't location-specific.)

  • Decide: AskUserQuestion — apply / defer / drop. Drop later findings an applied decision invalidates, with a one-line reason.
  • Check limit: on the first pushback, invoke the second-opinion skill via the Skill tool on the contested action — at most once per finding.
  • After the check: re-present apply / defer / drop without another second-opinion call.

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.