agentleFS
rikilamadridrikilamadrid/pathfinder/skills/reverse-engineer/SKILL.md

reverse-engineer

Skill1 starsChanged 43 days agoMITView on GitHub

Analyze an external product, interface, repository, workflow, or reference implementation and produce an evidence-based reconstruction blueprint without copying protected assets or inventing unsupported details.

22 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use research.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • NVIDIASkill

    research

    Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

28 rules. 0 are common, 25 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 17 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 25

    Distinctive

    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. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when the user wants to understand how an existing external product, interface, repository, interaction, animation, or …

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not automatically analyze every layer.

    line 44
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer the narrowest scope that answers the request.

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    If the target is broad, state which layers can be observed directly and which can only be inferred.

    line 48
  5. Distinctive:

    Never present an inference as a confirmed implementation detail.

    line 59
  6. Distinctive:

    Ask a question only when a missing answer would materially change the analysis.

    line 73
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not perform destructive actions.

    line 96
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not attempt to bypass authentication, authorization, paywalls, rate limits, anti-bot controls, or private systems.

    line 98
  9. Distinctive:

    Use only the sections relevant to the request.

    line 114
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not force a full-stack analysis onto a visual interaction request.

    line 116
  11. Distinctive:

    Prefer a solution appropriate for the user’s project, constraints, and existing conventions.

    line 129
  12. Distinctive:

    When implementation guidance is requested, include:

    line 151
  13. Distinctive:

    Keep the blueprint stack-agnostic unless the user’s project context establishes a stack.

    line 164
  14. Distinctive:

    Use one of these:

    line 170
  15. Distinctive:

    no handoff — when the user only requested analysis

    line 178
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not silently run or imitate the responsibilities of those skills.

    line 180
  17. Distinctive:

    Use only the sections that add value:

    line 184
  18. Distinctive:

    Do not claim to know a private or server-side implementation from surface evidence.

    line 229
  19. Distinctive:

    Do not copy proprietary source code, trademarks, text, illustrations, icons, audio, video, or other protected assets.

    line 230
  20. Distinctive:

    Do not bypass technical or access controls.

    line 232
  21. Distinctive:

    Do not inspect unrelated parts of a repository or product.

    line 233
  22. Very specific:

    Do not modify the user’s project unless explicitly requested through the appropriate Pathfinder delivery skill.

    line 234
  23. Distinctive:

    Do not install dependencies.

    line 235
  24. Very specific:

    Do not create feature files unless the user invokes to-specs.

    line 236
  25. Very specific:

    Do not create prototype code unless the user invokes prototype.

    line 237
  26. Distinctive:

    Do not turn uncertain technology guesses into requirements.

    line 238
  27. Distinctive:

    Prefer simple reconstruction approaches over stack imitation.

    line 239
  28. Distinctive:

    Keep the output proportional to the target.

    line 241

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 17 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

Reverse Engineer

Use this skill when the user wants to understand how an existing external product, interface, repository, interaction, animation, or workflow was likely built so they can learn from it, recreate its underlying behavior, or adapt its patterns to their own project.

This skill analyzes references.

It does not initialize a Pathfinder project, implement a feature, or replace kickstart-pathfinder, prototype, to-specs, learn-codebase, or the feature delivery loop.

Appropriate Inputs

The user may provide one or more of:

  • a public website or product URL
  • a public repository URL
  • screenshots or screen recordings
  • a live interface
  • product documentation
  • source files the user is authorized to inspect
  • a description of a product or interaction
  • a specific flow, component, animation, or system to analyze

First Determine the Target

Identify what the user actually wants reverse-engineered:

  • visual design
  • user experience
  • interaction behavior
  • animation or motion
  • frontend architecture
  • backend or data flow
  • component structure
  • state management
  • API behavior
  • information architecture
  • business workflow
  • full product system

Do not automatically analyze every layer.

Prefer the narrowest scope that answers the request.

If the target is broad, state which layers can be observed directly and which can only be inferred.

Evidence Levels

Classify meaningful findings as one of:

  • Observed — directly visible in the provided reference, source code, network behavior, documentation, or repository.
  • Strong inference — not directly visible, but strongly supported by multiple observations.
  • Possible implementation — one reasonable way to reproduce the behavior, but not evidence of how the original was built.
  • Unknown — cannot be determined from the available evidence.

Never present an inference as a confirmed implementation detail.

Process

1. Define the objective

Restate:

  • what is being analyzed
  • what the user wants to learn or reproduce
  • the analysis boundary
  • what evidence is available
  • what cannot be verified

Ask a question only when a missing answer would materially change the analysis.

Otherwise, proceed using clearly stated assumptions.

2. Gather evidence

Inspect only the evidence relevant to the requested scope.

Depending on the input, this may include:

  • visible page structure
  • responsive behavior
  • navigation and user flows
  • interaction states
  • timing and motion characteristics
  • accessibility semantics
  • repository structure
  • package and configuration files
  • source code boundaries
  • API calls visible through authorized inspection
  • public technical documentation
  • repeated visual or behavioral patterns

Do not perform destructive actions.

Do not attempt to bypass authentication, authorization, paywalls, rate limits, anti-bot controls, or private systems.

3. Decompose the system

Break the target into understandable parts such as:

  • experience and user flow
  • page or screen hierarchy
  • component hierarchy
  • data and state flow
  • services and integrations
  • animation system
  • responsive behavior
  • accessibility behavior
  • likely architectural boundaries

Use only the sections relevant to the request.

Do not force a full-stack analysis onto a visual interaction request.

4. Separate facts from reconstruction choices

For each major area, distinguish:

  1. what was observed
  2. what was inferred
  3. what remains unknown
  4. what implementation Pathfinder could use to reproduce the outcome

The reconstruction recommendation does not need to use the original product’s exact stack.

Prefer a solution appropriate for the user’s project, constraints, and existing conventions.

5. Identify the transferable pattern

Explain the underlying idea rather than merely listing surface details.

Examples:

  • progressive disclosure
  • optimistic interaction
  • scroll-linked storytelling
  • command palette architecture
  • reusable card composition
  • local-first state
  • staged data loading
  • motion used as spatial continuity
  • server-driven configuration

State why the pattern works and where it may fail.

6. Produce a reconstruction blueprint

When implementation guidance is requested, include:

  • smallest reproducible version
  • logical components or modules
  • state and data responsibilities
  • interaction states
  • responsive requirements
  • accessibility requirements
  • dependencies only when justified
  • risks and unknowns
  • verification approach
  • optional higher-fidelity improvements

Keep the blueprint stack-agnostic unless the user’s project context establishes a stack.

7. Recommend the Pathfinder handoff

End by recommending the correct next Pathfinder step.

Use one of these:

  • kickstart-pathfinder — when this analysis is becoming a new project
  • debate-me — when major product or technical decisions remain
  • prototype — when the experience or technical assumption needs validation
  • to-specs — when the direction is approved and ready to become feature files
  • /ticket load — when the analysis applies to one already-planned ticket
  • learn-codebase — when the user wants to understand their own repository instead
  • no handoff — when the user only requested analysis

Do not silently run or imitate the responsibilities of those skills.

Default Output

Use only the sections that add value:

# Reverse-Engineering Report

## Objective

What was analyzed and what the user wants to reproduce or understand.

## Evidence Available

The sources inspected and important limitations.

## Observed Behavior

Directly verifiable findings.

## Likely Structure

Strongly supported architectural, component, data, or interaction inferences.

## Unknowns

Details that cannot be determined honestly.

## Transferable Patterns

The underlying techniques worth learning or adapting.

## Reconstruction Blueprint

A practical implementation approach for the user’s project.

## Risks and Tradeoffs

Complexity, accessibility, performance, maintenance, legal, or fidelity concerns.

## Recommended Pathfinder Handoff

The appropriate next skill, if any, and why.

Rules

  • Distinguish observation from inference.
  • Do not claim to know a private or server-side implementation from surface evidence.
  • Do not copy proprietary source code, trademarks, text, illustrations, icons, audio, video, or other protected assets.
  • Reproduce underlying behavior and patterns, not brand identity.
  • Do not bypass technical or access controls.
  • Do not inspect unrelated parts of a repository or product.
  • Do not modify the user’s project unless explicitly requested through the appropriate Pathfinder delivery skill.
  • Do not install dependencies.
  • Do not create feature files unless the user invokes to-specs.
  • Do not create prototype code unless the user invokes prototype.
  • Do not turn uncertain technology guesses into requirements.
  • Prefer simple reconstruction approaches over stack imitation.
  • Respect CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and context/ai-interaction.md when operating inside a Pathfinder-enabled repository.
  • Keep the output proportional to the target. A single component should not receive a full product architecture report.

Quality Check

Before finishing, verify:

  • Is the requested target clearly defined?
  • Are observations and inferences visibly separated?
  • Is every major claim supported by available evidence?
  • Are unknowns stated honestly?
  • Does the blueprint reproduce the outcome rather than imitate the brand?
  • Is the recommended implementation appropriate for the user’s project?
  • Does the skill avoid overlapping with another Pathfinder skill?
  • Is the next Pathfinder handoff explicit and correct?

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.