agentleFS
rkhozinovrkhozinov/claude-skills/skills/slack-style/SKILL.md

slack-style

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Build or refresh the personal Slack voice profile from the user's own real messages — scrape and label their writing, report the evidence, and distill it into ~/.claude/slack-voice/voice.md, which slack-cli then uses when drafting messages. Use when the user wants Slack replies written in their own voice, asks to build/refresh/rebuild their Slack style, or complains that agent-written Slack messages are too long or do not sound like them.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    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 slack style exemplars -n 200 output and stats.md, then write ~/.claude/slack-voice/voice.md with these sections:

    line 50

≈ “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

Slack style builder

Produces ~/.claude/slack-voice/voice.md: a distilled profile of how the user actually writes in Slack, plus a bank of their real messages to imitate. slack-cli reads that file before every send/reply.

Why this exists

Agent-written Slack messages are ~100x longer than what the user types by hand, and they read like a report rather than a colleague. Relaying LLM output verbatim pushes work onto the reader and reads as unprofessional (nomeatproxy.com). The honest fix is to read, verify, and answer in your own words. This skill keeps the verification and automates the "own words" part, by learning the words from the user's own history.

Run it

slack style scrape --since 180d        # fetch + label; incremental, safe to re-run
slack style stats                      # evidence report (also written to stats.md)
slack style exemplars -n 200           # best hand-typed messages, with context

scrape takes a few minutes on a first run (paged search + one conversations.replies/history call per thread/channel, with 429 backoff). Re-runs skip everything already in the corpus. --full rebuilds from scratch.

How the labeling works

Exact, not guessed. Slack tags every message posted through the Web API with app_id/bot_id; a message typed in a Slack client has client_msg_id and neither. So provenance: human is genuinely the user's own writing and provenance: app is everything an agent posted as them. search.messages does not return those fields — only conversations.history/replies do — which is why the scrape does two passes.

One blind spot: text pasted from an agent into the Slack client is posted by the client, so it labels as human. These are easy to spot in the exemplar dump — they carry the formatting tells (bullet lists, bold section headers, "Everything is already set up correctly") that the rest of the corpus never uses. Hand-pick past them when writing the exemplar section; do not just take the top N.

Then write the profile

Read slack style exemplars -n 200 output and stats.md, then write ~/.claude/slack-voice/voice.md with these sections:

  1. Register — the output register is ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, not the register the corpus measures. Sentence case, no contractions, keep every article, one instruction per sentence, simple tenses, active voice, and only the modals can / will / must. Write that rule set into the profile first. Then still record what the real messages do — capitalization, contractions, recurring openers and closers, emoji habits, how they address people, how they say "I'm on it" / "that's done" / "I was wrong" — but record it under a heading that marks it superseded evidence. The corpus remains the source of length, structure and anti-patterns. It is no longer the source of wording. Full rule set: slack-cli/SKILL.md → "Register: ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English".
  2. Length — the measured median and p90 from stats.md, stated as the target.
  3. Escape hatch — what to do when detail is genuinely needed: verdict in the message, detail in a thread reply or behind a link, and say what was left out. State explicitly that the link must be something the recipient can open — a PR, a dashboard, a shared doc, a Slack file upload — and that a path on the sender's own machine (~/…, /tmp/…) is never an acceptable pointer. An agent drafting a message knows its own filesystem and will reach for it otherwise.
  4. Anti-patterns — drawn from the app bucket, which is a ready-made list of tells: em dashes, *Bold lead-in.* openers, bullet walls, stacked "two things" structure, unprompted jargon.
  5. Exemplars — 15–25 real messages grouped by intent (ack, on-it, status, unblock-confirm, ask, correction, defer, escalate), each with the message it was answering. Give every one a paired STE rewrite, and label the original superseded — copy the length and the structure, not the wording. The rewrites are what the agent imitates. This section does the real work; rules alone do not reproduce a register, but a bank of worked rewrites does.

Re-run the whole thing when the profile drifts or after a few months of new history.

Privacy — read before touching git

The corpus is real conversations with real colleagues, and this repo is public.

  • Everything the builder writes lives in ~/.claude/slack-voice/ (corpus.jsonl, state.json, stats.md, voice.md). Never copy any of it into this repo, a commit message, a PR body, or an issue.
  • Ship only code and instructions here. If an example is needed, invent one.
  • SLACK_VOICE_DIR overrides the location (used by the tests).

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.