agentleFS
robium-airobium-ai/robium/skills/foxglove/SKILL.md

foxglove

Skill93 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Visualize live or recorded ROS robot data remotely with Foxglove or Lichtblick.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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. Distinctive:

    Treat remote visualization as a chain: ROS graph, bridge, network, client, and layout.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Lichtblick: prefer an inspectable open-core viewer, local/offline use, or a browser client you can host and extend yourself.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Foxglove: prefer its managed data, fleet, organization, and support services, or when the team already uses its layouts and platform.

    line 15
  4. Very specific:

    Read client choices when licensing, hosting, extensions, or managed services affect the decision.

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    Run the bridge near the ROS graph.

    line 28
  6. Distinctive:

    Keep its unauthenticated WebSocket on a private network, VPN, or SSH tunnel.

    line 30

≈ “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

Foxglove and Lichtblick

Treat remote visualization as a chain: ROS graph, bridge, network, client, and layout. Find the first link without evidence.

Choose the client deliberately

  • Lichtblick: prefer an inspectable open-core viewer, local/offline use, or a browser client you can host and extend yourself.
  • Foxglove: prefer its managed data, fleet, organization, and support services, or when the team already uses its layouts and platform.
  • Both clients can consume a Foxglove WebSocket and recordings for the common ROS workflow. Re-check current licensing and self-hosting terms before making them an architecture dependency.

Read client choices when licensing, hosting, extensions, or managed services affect the decision. If the visualization tool itself has not been chosen, use visualization first.

Trace the live-data chain

  • Prove the ROS topics and QoS locally before blaming the bridge.
  • Run the bridge near the ROS graph; DDS discovery should not need to cross a browser, NAT boundary, or public internet.
  • Keep its unauthenticated WebSocket on a private network, VPN, or SSH tunnel.
  • Confirm the listening port and WebSocket reachability before debugging a client layout.
  • Limit high-rate topics at the bridge when bandwidth is constrained. Hiding a panel does not reduce transport load.
  • Save a focused layout per task and record before any run that must be shared, replayed, or compared.

For bridge, MCAP, navigation goals, teleop, actions, layouts, and custom clients, read ROS 2 workflows. For a connection that is blank, unreachable, mixed-content blocked, or missing controls, read failures.

Cross into ros2 when the local graph or QoS is wrong. Cross into environments when the bridge host, VPN, or container cannot provide the network contract. Cross into navigation only after pose, map, sensors, and goal messages are proven across the viewer boundary.

Done

  • The intended client reaches the bridge without exposing it publicly.
  • The necessary topics render at useful rates and with correct frames.
  • Controls publish to the interfaces the robot actually consumes.
  • The layout and recording path can be reused by another person.
  • Current behavior and hosting terms were checked against official Foxglove and Lichtblick documentation.

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.