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
- Firzus/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- afonsoft/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- patrick-fu/awesome-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- loootai/reverse-engineertheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- umararshad4/honey-stacktheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- laaielichter/Reverseporttheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
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.
NVIDIASkillresearch
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
Other versions22 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- rikilamadrid/lorekeeper★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 21
- boshu2/agentops★ 453same name
- patrick-fu/awesome-skills★ 69same name
- laaielichter/Reverseport★ 18same name
- kevinbadi/open-edits★ 17same name
- afonsoft/skills★ 14same name
- rade-nugroho/Agentic-Enteprises-Skill★ 9same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- daemon-blockint-tech/Agentic-Enteprises-Skill★ 8same name
- tstapler/dotfiles★ 8same name
- alvinhayy/Mobile-ReverseSkill★ 6same name
11 more not listed
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 repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- blog-post-redactorSkill
- challenge-meSkill
- debate-meSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- handoffSkill
- hooksmithSkill
- kickstart-pathfinderSkill
- learn-codebaseSkill
- learn-featureSkill
- learning-reviewSkill
- map-systemSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- prototypeSkill
- quiz-meSkill
- reflectSkill
- render-artifactSkill
- reverse-engineerSkill
- roleSkill
- setup-trackerSkill
- skillsmithSkill
- teach-architectureSkill
- teach-featureSkill
- ticketSkill
- to-specsSkill
- to-ticketsSkill
- whereamiSkill
- blog-post-redactorSkill
- challenge-meSkill
- debate-meSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- handoffSkill
- hooksmithSkill
- kickstart-pathfinderSkill
- learn-codebaseSkill
- learn-featureSkill
- learning-reviewSkill
- map-systemSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- prototypeSkill
- quiz-meSkill
- reflectSkill
- render-artifactSkill
- roleSkill
- setup-trackerSkill
- skillsmithSkill
- teach-architectureSkill
- teach-featureSkill
- ticketSkill
- to-specsSkill
- to-ticketsSkill
- whereamiSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill when the user wants to understand how an existing external product, interface, repository, interaction, animation, or …
- Distinctive: line 44
Do not automatically analyze every layer.
- Distinctive: line 46
Prefer the narrowest scope that answers the request.
- Distinctive: line 48
If the target is broad, state which layers can be observed directly and which can only be inferred.
- Distinctive: line 59
Never present an inference as a confirmed implementation detail.
- Distinctive: line 73
Ask a question only when a missing answer would materially change the analysis.
- Distinctive: line 96
Do not perform destructive actions.
- Distinctive: line 98
Do not attempt to bypass authentication, authorization, paywalls, rate limits, anti-bot controls, or private systems.
- Distinctive: line 114
Use only the sections relevant to the request.
- Distinctive: line 116
Do not force a full-stack analysis onto a visual interaction request.
- Distinctive: line 129
Prefer a solution appropriate for the user’s project, constraints, and existing conventions.
- Distinctive: line 151
When implementation guidance is requested, include:
- Distinctive: line 164
Keep the blueprint stack-agnostic unless the user’s project context establishes a stack.
- Distinctive: line 170
Use one of these:
- Distinctive: line 178
no handoff — when the user only requested analysis
- Distinctive: line 180
Do not silently run or imitate the responsibilities of those skills.
- Distinctive: line 184
Use only the sections that add value:
- Distinctive: line 229
Do not claim to know a private or server-side implementation from surface evidence.
- Distinctive: line 230
Do not copy proprietary source code, trademarks, text, illustrations, icons, audio, video, or other protected assets.
- Distinctive: line 232
Do not bypass technical or access controls.
- Distinctive: line 233
Do not inspect unrelated parts of a repository or product.
- Very specific: line 234
Do not modify the user’s project unless explicitly requested through the appropriate Pathfinder delivery skill.
- Distinctive: line 235
Do not install dependencies.
- Very specific: line 236
Do not create feature files unless the user invokes to-specs.
- Very specific: line 237
Do not create prototype code unless the user invokes prototype.
- Distinctive: line 238
Do not turn uncertain technology guesses into requirements.
- Distinctive: line 239
Prefer simple reconstruction approaches over stack imitation.
- Distinctive: line 241
Keep the output proportional to the target.
“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.
Files
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:
- what was observed
- what was inferred
- what remains unknown
- 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 projectdebate-me— when major product or technical decisions remainprototype— when the experience or technical assumption needs validationto-specs— when the direction is approved and ready to become feature files/ticket load— when the analysis applies to one already-planned ticketlearn-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, andcontext/ai-interaction.mdwhen 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?
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.

