prior-art
Skill97 starsChanged 33 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Inspect bounded local repository and Runx catalog evidence before a design, draft, or operator decision, then produce citation-bound findings and a reuse, amendment, new-work, or stop recommendation. Use when existing tools, skills, standards, or project patterns must constrain downstream work; use research or web-fetch first for external sources.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Mattie/mattie_skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mmurakaru/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- damacus/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- crsmithdev/alephtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- Timi-Fish/chinese-pm-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- dylanpulver/prior-arttheir own version, first seen Jul 20, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- damacus/agent-skills★ 2same name
- Mattie/mattie_skills★ 1same name
- crsmithdev/aleph★ 0same name
- dylanpulver/prior-art★ 0same name
- mmurakaru/skills★ 0same name
- Timi-Fish/chinese-pm-skills★ 0same name
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 repository94 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- runxSkill
- adopt-skillSkill
- agencySkill
- answer-from-docsSkill
- attention-reviewSkill
- audit-receiptSkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- business-opsSkill
- chargeSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- cold-outreachSkill
- content-pipelineSkill
- contract-drafterSkill
- conversation-replySkill
- conversation-reviewSkill
- crm-cleanupSkill
- cve-auditSkill
- data-storeSkill
- data-subject-requestSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- diagnose-skill-runSkill
- dispute-respondSkill
- ecosystem-briefSkill
- extractSkill
- ghostwriteSkill
- github-pr-commentSkill
- github-pr-reviewSkill
- github-syncSkill
- google-analyticsSkill
- google-calendarSkill
- google-search-consoleSkill
- governed-outboundSkill
- helpdeskSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- issue-intakeSkill
- issue-to-prSkill
- issue-triageSkill
- knowledge-routerSkill
- lead-enrichmentSkill
- lead-qualifySkill
- least-privilegeSkill
- ledgerSkill
- list-hygiene-judgeSkill
- marketplace-invokeSkill
- meeting-followupSkill
- mock-chargeSkill
- mock-paySkill
- mock-refundSkill
- moltbookSkill
- n8n-handoffSkill
- nitrosendSkill
- nws-weather-forecastSkill
- open-meteo-weather-forecastSkill
- operator-inboxSkill
- ops-deskSkill
- organic-growthSkill
- policy-authorSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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 12
Do the inspection and return the recommendation in the same task.
- Very specific: line 16
Start from the operator's objective and current workspace.
- Very specific: line 27
If the selected evidence is insufficient, return one precise needs_more_evidence result naming the missing source.
- Very specific: line 53
Read only the indexed sources needed for the objective.
- Distinctive: line 88
Use the deterministic evidence index to select and read only the bounded local sources needed for the objective.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
Prior Art
Ground the next decision in sources that were actually inspected.
Direct use
Do the inspection and return the recommendation in the same task. Do not stop after announcing a search plan, ask the operator to enumerate obvious files, or turn bounded discovery into a repository-wide grep.
- Start from the operator's objective and current workspace. When exact
source_pathsare already supplied, reuse them. - Otherwise, make one targeted discovery pass for the smallest likely owning set: repository instructions and conventions, the named product or package, exact active plans or specs implicated by the objective, and adjacent Runx skill manifests. Select at most sixteen files. Listing filenames is discovery, not the prior-art result; continue through inspection.
- Invoke the default runner with the objective, chosen paths, and any existing decomposition. Complete its bounded research request, resume it in memory, and return the validated prior-art report—not a narration of what you intend to read.
- If the selected evidence is insufficient, return one precise
needs_more_evidenceresult naming the missing source. Do not broaden the search repeatedly or cycle through unrelated skills.
Routine local discovery and reads use the host's normal authenticated tools and need no approval. Runx adds the catalog projection, digest-bound source bundle, citation validation, reusable packet, and receipt. If Runx is unavailable, preserve the selected paths and findings in the documented output shape so the operator can continue locally without repeating discovery; do not claim a Runx receipt.
Composed use
A parent should pass its objective, decomposition, and already selected source paths. Reuse that evidence boundary exactly. Do not enumerate the repository, reacquire the catalog, or repeat a prior evidence-selection step unless the packet is missing, stale, or outside the current objective.
Executable procedure
- Supply a bounded
objective, optional work-plandecomposition, and the repo-relativesource_pathsselected by direct discovery or a parent chain. - Native
runx.skill.inspectindexes the local Runx catalog andfs.read_bundlereads and hashes at most sixteen requested files under the workspace boundary. Missing files are recorded; escaping, duplicate, or oversized paths fail closed. - Read only the indexed sources needed for the objective. State each finding as
claim,source,relevance, andconfidence(verified,likely, orunverified). - Name adjacent catalog skills and the boundary each already owns. Recommend
reuse,amend,new_work, orstop; do not create a duplicate primitive because an existing package is imperfect. - The domain validator checks every verified citation and adjacent skill
against those native projections. Unsupported verified claims or missing
requested sources force
needs_more_evidence.
External URLs are not inspected by this runner. Fetch them through a governed source skill, persist the bounded evidence in the workspace, then pass its path here.
Output
decision: ready | needs_more_evidence
findings:
- claim: string
source: repo-relative path
relevance: string
confidence: verified | likely | unverified
catalog_fit:
decision: reuse | amend | new_work | stop
adjacent_skills: array
rationale: string
recommended_flow: array
quality_bar: object
sources: array
risks: array
evidence: object
validation: objectInputs are objective, optional decomposition, graph_purpose, audience, artifact_contract, and bounded source_paths.
Agent task contracts
prior-art-research
Use the deterministic evidence index to select and read only the bounded local sources needed for the objective. Return prior_art_draft with decision, findings, catalog_fit, quality_bar, recommended_flow, sources, and risks. Cite repo-relative paths exactly. Mark a finding verified only when its source appears in inspected_sources or the catalog index. Prefer reuse or amendment over duplicate primitives. Return needs_more_evidence when requested sources are missing.
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.

