no-process-porn
Skill9 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Automatically use whenever a model starts looking at gates, promotion states, smoke tests, instrumentation, telemetry, observability, dashboards, ledgers, manifests, certificates, audits, reports, handoffs, fresh-eyes reviews, verification theater, or completion labels such as ready, green, promoted, validated, closed, or complete. Also use when those artifacts accumulate while requested functionality is still missing, or when reviewing whether process has become a substitute for delivery.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agentic-scaffoldingSkill
- annas-archive-ebooksSkill
- ansi-artSkill
- clarifySkill
- conjecture-cascadeSkill
- crystallizeSkill
- dianalokadaSkill
- duris-game-knowledgeSkill
- duris-group-combatSkill
- ebook-extractorSkill
- failure-modesSkill
- gpt-pro-loopSkill
- graph-researcherSkill
- improve-codebaseSkill
- jevSkill
- julian-writingSkill
- kalshi-prediction-marketSkill
- lemmaSkill
- medium-paywall-bypassSkill
- ml-learning-methodsSkill
- name-reviewSkill
- pm-deep-analysisSkill
- pm-market-analysisSkill
- pm-research-methodologiesSkill
- pm-situation-framingSkill
- prediction-drillSkill
- probe-driven-designSkill
- refine-testsSkill
- remove-ai-sinsSkill
- show-usageSkill
- writing-claude-skillsSkill
- x-undocumented-apiSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
22 rules. About 0 are common, 20 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈20
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 31
Keep process only when it helps a named consumer make or execute a real decision.
- Distinctive: line 33
Do not turn this skill into another ceremony.
- Very specific: line 37
Treat words such as gate, promoted, smoke test, and instrumentation as signals, never verdicts.
- Distinctive: line 39
Treat process as the product when the user explicitly requests a plan, audit, governance system, test harness, instrumentation, or …
- Distinctive: line 41
Do not count commits, closed tasks, reports, reviewers, tests, or artifacts as progress unless they establish or advance the requested …
- Distinctive: line 42
Do not use sunk cost to preserve inert machinery.
- Distinctive: line 47
Ask in order. Stop once the next action is clear.
- Distinctive: line 51
Counterfactual: If this process disappeared, would the outcome or decision change?
- Distinctive: line 60
No consumer or changed branch → remove or demote it.
- Very specific: line 63
No actual problem → return NO DISTINCT FINDING and resume the task.
- Distinctive: line 99
If the label changes but execution, defaults, deployment, exposure, or prioritization does not, it is an annotation.
- Distinctive: line 111
No consumer means no gate.
- Distinctive: line 125
Start with the question, not the metric.
- Distinctive: line 129
Run it against representative reality.
- Distinctive: line 137
Keep them when they are an explicit deliverable, durable interface, legal/audit record, cross-session handoff, recovery mechanism, or input …
- Distinctive: line 151
Run one bounded experiment at the measured seam, then fix the cause.
- Distinctive: line 155
Use the narrowest check that can falsify the changed behavior.
- Distinctive: line 167
Remove duplicated checks, speculative fields, stale dashboards, redundant reports, or process machinery.
- Distinctive: line 171
When credentials, authority, external state, or a material user choice blocks the next step, state the exact verified boundary.
- Distinctive: line 185
Do not delete safety because it resembles ceremony.
- Distinctive: line 191
If a visible report is useful, use this maximum shape:
- Distinctive: line 199
Do not report the questions you asked, list every clean artifact, or issue a certificate that the work is "process-porn free."
≈ “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
No Process Porn
Keep process only when it helps a named consumer make or execute a real decision. Otherwise remove it, demote it to an annotation, or replace it with the smallest direct action toward the requested outcome.
Do not turn this skill into another ceremony. Stop the audit as soon as one decisive fact determines the next move. Do not create a worksheet, scorecard, report, ledger, or gate merely to prove this skill was applied.
Non-negotiables
- Treat words such as
gate,promoted,smoke test, andinstrumentationas signals, never verdicts. - Preserve auth, money, migration, deletion, data-integrity, compliance, and other safety-critical controls.
- Treat process as the product when the user explicitly requests a plan, audit, governance system, test harness, instrumentation, or documentation.
- Allow
NO DISTINCT FINDING. A forced objection is reward hacking. - Do not count commits, closed tasks, reports, reviewers, tests, or artifacts as progress unless they establish or advance the requested behavior.
- Do not use sunk cost to preserve inert machinery.
- End every real finding in a concrete action, owner, or re-entry condition. Refusal and diagnosis alone are not delivery.
Run the shortest decisive audit
Ask in order. Stop once the next action is clear.
- Outcome: Which requested capability, correctness defect, safety property, or immediate blocker does this serve?
- Consumer: Who or what reads the artifact or verdict? What decision, branch, deployment, or operator action changes?
- Counterfactual: If this process disappeared, would the outcome or decision change?
- Termini: Where do both outcomes land? A pass must unlock something; a hold or failure must route somewhere actionable.
- Reality: Has a real item passed, failed, or been changed, or does the machinery only describe hypothetical future work?
- Proportion: Is this the smallest credible way to obtain the needed confidence? Does support work remain smaller than the work it supports?
Interpretation:
- Clear outcome, consumer, counterfactual effect, termini, and proportion → keep it.
- Useful observation but no decision authority → label it as evidence or an annotation, not a gate.
- No consumer or changed branch → remove or demote it.
- Unknown cause at one seam → use a bounded probe, not a permanent observability program.
- Evidence already sufficient for the scoped claim → stop checking and advance the work.
- No actual problem → return
NO DISTINCT FINDINGand resume the task.
Check the three reward traps
Counterfeit progress
Identify the currency the agent is being paid in: approval, task closure, commit count, green checks, promotion labels, proof tiers, report volume, reviewer agreement, or visible busyness. Ask how that currency could be counterfeited without delivering the outcome.
Common forms:
- splitting one capability into many closures;
- weakening a validator or regenerating a golden to obtain green;
- treating mocks, fixtures, static inspection, or typechecks as live proof;
- producing objections, findings, or consensus because every reviewer is expected to contribute;
- editing plans, specs, issue text, or status documents and calling the feature advanced;
- adding checks whose main effect is producing more checks or evidence artifacts.
Ceremony
Inspect only the process newly created or expanded for this task. Name its consumer and consequence. Do not inventory the entire repository unless the user requested that audit.
Avoidance
Name the highest-value unfinished implementation or decision. If meta-work is delaying it, choose one forward path below and act.
Handle high-risk signals precisely
promoted, ready, green, validated, verified, closed, complete
Require four facts:
- promoted from what state to what state;
- the authority that owns that transition;
- the exact evidence supporting it;
- the behavior the new state enables.
If the label changes but execution, defaults, deployment, exposure, or prioritization does not, it is an annotation. If a smoke test or mock supports only a narrow claim, narrow the status claim.
Gates
Name the consumer before designing or preserving the gate. A consumed gate has:
- a decision owner;
- explicit input and authority;
- pass and hold/fail termini;
- a real item that can traverse it;
- a consequence on both paths.
No consumer means no gate. Demote the verdict to evidence or remove it. If held items accumulate with no owner or re-entry condition, fix the routing or retire the gate.
Smoke tests
A smoke test proves one end-to-end path reached one expected observation in one environment. State that claim exactly.
- A mock smoke test does not prove a live integration.
- A
401may prove routing and auth enforcement, not successful authenticated behavior. - CLI help proves loading and parsing, not the external operation.
- One sample proves viability, not reliability, performance, or production readiness.
- Once the scoped uncertainty is resolved, stop rerunning unless the artifact changed or the check is an established release consumer.
Instrumentation, telemetry, logging, dashboards, and coverage analyzers
Start with the question, not the metric.
- Reuse an existing signal if it answers the question.
- Otherwise add the smallest temporary probe at the uncertain seam.
- Run it against representative reality.
- Revert temporary instrumentation after it identifies the cause.
- Preserve the lesson as a focused regression test or direct fix.
Make instrumentation permanent only when an ongoing operator, alert, control loop, capacity decision, SLO, or incident workflow consumes it. Name the action triggered by the signal and its ownership, cardinality, retention, and failure behavior. Do not build a dashboard by default.
Ledgers, manifests, certificates, reports, handoffs, and audits
Keep them when they are an explicit deliverable, durable interface, legal/audit record, cross-session handoff, recovery mechanism, or input to a named decision. Otherwise prefer the existing issue, test, log, or version history.
One bounded fresh-eyes pass can find blind spots. Repeated review rounds, vote counts, contribution scores, consensus, "two quiet rounds," or prompts that demand what others missed incentivize invented findings. Reviewers may return NO DISTINCT FINDING; deduplicate evidence before adding another pass.
For broader vocabulary and counterexamples, read references/signals-and-countermoves.md.
Choose exactly one forward path
Deliver
Implement the missing capability or fix the concrete defect. Use when the next step is known and authorized.
Diagnose
Run one bounded experiment at the measured seam, then fix the cause. Prefer temporary instrumentation, a direct query, a minimal reproduction, or one representative live call. State what each possible result would change before running it.
Verify
Use the narrowest check that can falsify the changed behavior. Match the claim to the proof class. Stop when proportionate evidence exists.
Demote
Convert an unconsumed verdict, probability, score, or status into a plain observation. Attach a re-entry condition if a future consumer could make it useful.
Route
Connect a legitimate gate or finding to its missing consumer. Give held items an owner, next action, and re-entry condition; give passed items the action they unlock.
Subtract
Remove duplicated checks, speculative fields, stale dashboards, redundant reports, or process machinery. Preserve user data and unrelated work; use version control and obtain authority before destructive or broad deletion.
Hold honestly
When credentials, authority, external state, or a material user choice blocks the next step, state the exact verified boundary. Continue independent useful work; do not build speculative machinery to simulate certainty.
Prevent overcorrection
Process is justified when its failure would plausibly cause harm or when it buys a decision that cannot be obtained more cheaply. Examples:
- a transaction protects money or durable state;
- an auth gate blocks unauthorized access;
- a migration check prevents corruption;
- a release smoke test exercises the real deployment path;
- temporary instrumentation distinguishes competing root causes;
- a promotion rule commits capital only after pre-registered out-of-sample evidence;
- an audit trail is consumed by an operator, regulator, recovery procedure, or future session.
Do not delete safety because it resembles ceremony. Deepen or simplify it so its consumer and consequences are explicit.
Act, then report narrowly
For implementation requests, make the direct safe change once the diagnosis is sufficient. For read-only review requests, report the finding without mutating. Never infer authority for a broader cleanup.
If a visible report is useful, use this maximum shape:
Finding: <NO DISTINCT FINDING | consumed process | mislabeled proof | dry process | overgrown process>
Evidence: <consumer/consequence or the missing link>
Action: <one forward path already taken or the exact next authorized action>Do not report the questions you asked, list every clean artifact, or issue a certificate that the work is "process-porn free."
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.

