agentleFS
shinprshinpr/rashomon/skills/knowledge-base/SKILL.md

knowledge-base

Skill20 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Retrieves and updates project-specific prompt knowledge from comparison evidence and user feedback. Use only for prompt analysis or post-comparison learning within a Rashomon evaluation.

32 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use playwright, code-reviewer and 4 more.

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.
  • OpenAISkill

    playwright

    Use when the task requires automating a real browser from the terminal (navigation, form filling, snapshots, screenshots, data extraction, UI-flow debugging) via `playwright-cli` or the bundled wrapper script.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GoogleSkill

    code-reviewer

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • engtySkill

    codex

    Use when the user asks to run Codex CLI (codex exec, codex resume) or references OpenAI Codex for code analysis, refactoring, or automated editing

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • ElasticSkill

    create-skill

    Interactively create a new Claude Code skill and add it to the elastic-docs-skills catalog. Use when the user wants to generate a new skill, scaffold a slash command, or build automation for docs tasks.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • CloudflareSkill

    security-audit

    Security guidance and vulnerability review for codebases, APIs, services, CLI tools, libraries, and daemons. Use for security questions, focused reviews, vulnerability research, security audits, or pen tests. Run the complete workflow only for explicit codebase audit or pen-test requests, full/comprehensive/end-to-end reviews, or requested report artifacts.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    verify

    End-to-end app testing pipeline for browser-based web apps on cloud browsers via Azure Playwright Workspaces: verify the live app, author tests for working flows, heal failing tests, then re-run with video and produce one consolidated report. Three phases (app verification, test authoring, test healing) plus a scoped final sanity run; each phase emits a sub-report. Use when asked to "verify my app", "make sure my app works and has good test coverage", "do a full QA pass", "add tests where I'm missing coverage", "fix failing tests and add new ones", "smoke test before deploy", "QA my deployment", or any combined verify-and-test ask. Requires Azure CLI (`az login`) and a Playwright Workspace resource ID — bootstraps configs on first invocation. Browser-based web apps with Playwright only — not for unit/API tests, native mobile/desktop, load/perf, or full accessibility audits.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    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:

    If new > lowest existing: remove lowest, add new

    line 104
  2. Very specific:

    Read .claude/.rashomon/prompt-knowledge.yaml (if exists)

    line 112
  3. Distinctive:

    After a comparison and user feedback confirm how an entry affected execution:

    line 121
  4. Distinctive:

    Write updated knowledge base

    line 128
  5. Distinctive:

    When comparison results require knowledge base updates:

    line 152
  6. Distinctive:

    Remove entry if confidence < 0.2 after decrease

    line 157
  7. Distinctive:

    Add new entries from user insight (initial confidence: 0.5)

    line 160
  8. Distinctive:

    Remove entries that fall below confidence threshold

    line 161

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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

Knowledge Base Skill

Storage Location

{project_root}/.claude/.rashomon/prompt-knowledge.yaml

Schema

patterns:
  - name: "Pattern name"
    what_to_look_for: |
      When this pattern applies
    improvement: |
      How to improve when detected
    learned_from: "Date and context"
    source: "comparison ID, report path, or user feedback"
    source_fingerprint: "stable hash or revision identifying the evidence"
    validity_scope: "project area, version range, or conditions where this applies"
    last_verified: "ISO-8601 timestamp"
    invalidated_when: "observable condition that requires revalidation"
    confidence: 0.0-1.0
    times_applied: 0

anti_patterns:
  - name: "Anti-pattern name"
    what_to_look_for: |
      What to avoid
    why_bad: |
      Why problematic in this project
    learned_from: "Date and context"
    source: "comparison ID, report path, or user feedback"
    source_fingerprint: "stable hash or revision identifying the evidence"
    validity_scope: "project area, version range, or conditions where this applies"
    last_verified: "ISO-8601 timestamp"
    invalidated_when: "observable condition that requires revalidation"
    confidence: 0.0-1.0
    times_applied: 0

metadata:
  last_updated: "ISO-8601 timestamp"
  total_comparisons: 0
  patterns_count: 0
  anti_patterns_count: 0
  max_entries: 20

Extraction Criteria

Save as Improvement Pattern

ALL conditions must be true:

  • Optimized prompt showed structural improvement (not variance)
  • Improvement is project-specific (not explained by BP-001~009)
  • Pattern is likely to recur in this project

Confidence Assignment:

EvidenceConfidence
Multiple comparisons confirmed0.8+
Single comparison, clear effect0.5-0.7
Effect present but uncertain0.3-0.5

Minimum threshold: 0.3 (entries below this are skipped)

Save as Anti-Pattern

ALL conditions must be true:

  • Original had problem specific to this project
  • Problem is project-specific (beyond standard patterns BP-001~009)
  • Problem likely to recur

Extraction Scope

Save only entries that are:

  • Project-specific (beyond standard best practices BP-001~009)
  • Likely to recur in this project
  • Showing clear effect (structural improvement, confidence ≥ 0.3)

Capacity Management

Maximum: 20 entries (patterns + anti_patterns combined)

Retention Score: confidence * (1 + log(times_applied + 1))

This formula:

  • Prioritizes high-confidence entries
  • Rewards frequently-used patterns
  • Applies no direct age penalty; validity is evaluated separately

Age alone does not reduce retention. Before scoring, revalidate an entry when its invalidated_when condition is observed or its source fingerprint no longer matches. An entry with unresolved validity is excluded from retrieval until verified.

Eviction Process:

  1. Calculate retention scores for all entries
  2. Calculate score for new candidate
  3. If new > lowest existing: remove lowest, add new
  4. Otherwise: skip new entry

Operations

Retrieval

At start of prompt analysis:

  1. Read .claude/.rashomon/prompt-knowledge.yaml (if exists)
  2. Exclude entries whose validity condition is triggered or whose source fingerprint is stale
  3. For each valid entry, check what_to_look_for against current prompt
  4. Return relevant entries with relevance scores and provenance

Retrieval is read-only. It records proposed entry IDs in the prompt-analysis result; it does not increment counters or write the knowledge file.

Storage

After a comparison and user feedback confirm how an entry affected execution:

  1. Evaluate against extraction criteria
  2. Generate candidate entries
  3. Check for duplicates
  4. Increment times_applied for each valid entry whose use is confirmed by the report
  5. Revalidate source fingerprints and validity conditions
  6. Apply capacity management
  7. Write updated knowledge base
  8. Update metadata

Example Entry

patterns:
  - name: "TypeScript interface reference"
    what_to_look_for: |
      Code generation prompts creating TypeScript types without referencing existing type definitions in src/types/
    improvement: |
      Add: "Reference existing types in src/types/ to maintain consistency and avoid duplicate type definitions"
    learned_from: "2026-01-14: Comparison showed better type reuse"
    source: "comparison: cmp-20260114-types"
    source_fingerprint: "git:abc123:src/types"
    validity_scope: "TypeScript generation under src/"
    last_verified: "2026-01-14T12:00:00Z"
    invalidated_when: "src/types is removed or its public type policy changes"
    confidence: 0.7
    times_applied: 3

Feedback-Based Adjustments

When comparison results require knowledge base updates:

Confidence Adjustments:

  • User confirms improvement: +0.1 (cap at 0.95)
  • Pattern led to worse result: -0.2
  • Remove entry if confidence < 0.2 after decrease

Entry Management:

  • Add new entries from user insight (initial confidence: 0.5)
  • Remove entries that fall below confidence threshold

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.