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
- shetengteng/skillix-hubtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ITch8/customs-data-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- theopenco/llmgatewaytheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- digitalgym/aipathway-standardstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- jjmrocha/coding-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- garri333/Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
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.
OpenAISkillplaywright
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
GoogleSkillcode-reviewer
Also in 4 projects that use this
engtySkillcodex
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
ElasticSkillcreate-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
CloudflareSkillsecurity-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 AzureSkillverify
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
Other versions32 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 32
- rommapp/romm★ 14ksame name
- wonderwhy-er/DesktopCommanderMCP★ 10ksame name
- Lilac-Labs/gini-agent★ 1.9ksame name
- Open-Curiosity/gini-agent★ 1.9ksame name
- theopenco/llmgateway★ 1.7ksame name
- icey1287/SuperMew★ 884same name
- Karanjot786/TermUI★ 238same name
- JKHeadley/instar★ 86same name
- svy04/ballast★ 73same name
- zeroclaw-labs/zeroclaw-skills★ 65same name
22 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- prompt-optimizationSkill
- recipe-eval-promptSkill
- recipe-eval-skillSkill
- worktree-executionSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 104
If new > lowest existing: remove lowest, add new
- Very specific: line 112
Read .claude/.rashomon/prompt-knowledge.yaml (if exists)
- Distinctive: line 121
After a comparison and user feedback confirm how an entry affected execution:
- Distinctive: line 128
Write updated knowledge base
- Distinctive: line 152
When comparison results require knowledge base updates:
- Distinctive: line 157
Remove entry if confidence < 0.2 after decrease
- Distinctive: line 160
Add new entries from user insight (initial confidence: 0.5)
- Distinctive: line 161
Remove entries that fall below confidence threshold
“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.
Files
Knowledge Base Skill
Storage Location
{project_root}/.claude/.rashomon/prompt-knowledge.yamlSchema
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: 20Extraction 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:
| Evidence | Confidence |
| Multiple comparisons confirmed | 0.8+ |
| Single comparison, clear effect | 0.5-0.7 |
| Effect present but uncertain | 0.3-0.5 |
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:
- Calculate retention scores for all entries
- Calculate score for new candidate
- If new > lowest existing: remove lowest, add new
- Otherwise: skip new entry
Operations
Retrieval
At start of prompt analysis:
- Read
.claude/.rashomon/prompt-knowledge.yaml(if exists) - Exclude entries whose validity condition is triggered or whose source fingerprint is stale
- For each valid entry, check
what_to_look_foragainst current prompt - 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:
- Evaluate against extraction criteria
- Generate candidate entries
- Check for duplicates
- Increment
times_appliedfor each valid entry whose use is confirmed by the report - Revalidate source fingerprints and validity conditions
- Apply capacity management
- Write updated knowledge base
- 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: 3Feedback-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
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.

