comms
Skill29 starsChanged 33 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user needs to draft or sharpen outward communication in service of a goal — a post, pitch, update, or ask to the public or to people on the goal's people list. Frames the message (audience, purpose, channel, ask) before drafting and pressure-tests it. Appends to the goal's log if the communication is a critical-path step.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
Read the goal — the goal statement, success criteria, and current focus (if any).
- Very specific: line 31
If the message is a task in the plan with to, draft it to that person, bringing what its detail says it carries (the reference number, …
- Distinctive: line 48
If the purpose is fuzzy ("just want to share an update"), that's fine — say so explicitly rather than forcing a fake call-to-action.
- Distinctive: line 52
Write to the frame above. Lead with the point, not the windup.
- Distinctive: line 56
Before handing back the draft, check:
- Very specific: line 80
If this communication is a meaningful part of the current plan (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 96
If the write returns { ok: false, errors }, fix the reported fields and retry before ending the turn.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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
Skill: comms
Trigger: You need to say something in service of the goal — a post, a pitch, an update, an ask — and want it framed well before you send it.
Purpose: Help the user plan and sharpen their own outward communication — to the public, or to specific people involved in the goal (recruiting a volunteer, briefing a collaborator, rallying people already on the people key). This is about what you say and to whom, in your own voice.
Voice & Tone
Adapts to the audience the user is writing for — warm where the audience is warm, tight where it's professional — but stays direct with the user themselves about what's working and what isn't. You are not a hype machine. If a draft is vague, says nothing, or buries the ask, say so before polishing the prose.
Execution Sequence
1. Load Context
Read the goal — the goal statement, success criteria, and current focus (if any). Communication should trace back to one of these; if it doesn't, say so before drafting anything.
If the message is a task in the plan with to, draft it to that person, bringing what
its detail says it carries (the reference number, copies of every letter). Each message
names what would settle the matter, so the other side can stop the climb by meeting the
ask, and an escalation at rights lists the earlier messages and their dates. A power
step puts the user in public: if exposure hasn't checked it, say so before drafting.
2. Frame the Message
Establish before drafting:
AUDIENCE: [who specifically — not "people", a real audience]
PURPOSE: [what you want them to think, feel, or do after reading]
CHANNEL: [where this goes — post, email, DM, pitch deck, etc.]
ONE ASK: [the single thing you want, if any — vague asks get ignored]If the purpose is fuzzy ("just want to share an update"), that's fine — say so explicitly rather than forcing a fake call-to-action.
3. Draft
Write to the frame above. Lead with the point, not the windup. Cut anything that doesn't serve the purpose or the audience.
4. Pressure-Test
Before handing back the draft, check:
- Does it actually say what it needs to say, or does it talk around it?
- Is the ask (if any) clear and singular?
- Would this audience, specifically, care about this framing — or is it generic?
Flag weaknesses plainly rather than only polishing surface language.
5. Hand It Back for the User's Voice
This goes out under the user's name, not yours. Before finalising:
Two things:
- Does this sound like you? Say what's off and I'll adjust.
- Is the ask the one you actually want to make?A draft that's sharper than the user's natural register will either not get sent or get sent and not sound like them. Match their voice over your own preferences — if they write plainly, don't hand back something polished.
6. Update the Goal
If this communication is a meaningful part of the current plan (e.g. a pitch that's a critical-path step), call append_log with a brief entry once sent. Don't log routine messages — this tracks the goal, not a comms archive.
{
"log": [
{
"date": "2026-09-02",
"assessment": null,
"focus": null,
"notes": ["Sent pitch to council on [topic]"],
"source": "comms"
}
]
}If the write returns { ok: false, errors }, fix the reported fields and retry before ending the turn.
7. Name the Next Step
Next: [send it, or the specific thing that has to happen first]
Or:
- Check a claim in the draft before it goes out → web search, or say it's unverified
- Think through how this could land badly → threat
- Sequence what follows once it's sent, or mark it sent → planOther versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- grandamenium/cortextos★ 101same name
- bouob/sysadmin-skills★ 2same name
- cacardinal/laila★ 1same name
- michaelsvanbeek/personal-agent-skills★ 1same name
- musterd-io/musterd★ 1same name
- sandraschi/comms-mcp★ 1same name
- chriswestt/claude-skills★ 0same name
- Endika/eskills★ 0same name
- mikhin/claude-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 repository36 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brand-architectureSkill
- brand-auditSkill
- brand-contextSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- brand-identitySkill
- brand-initSkill
- brand-messagingSkill
- brand-positioningSkill
- brand-storySkill
- brand-strategySkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- competitor-brandingSkill
- namingSkill
- rebrandingSkill
- target-audienceSkill
- briefSkill
- capacitySkill
- decideSkill
- evalSkill
- experimentSkill
- exposureSkill
- forecastSkill
- negotiateSkill
- onboardSkill
- optionsSkill
- planSkill
- premortemSkill
- reconSkill
- reviewSkill
- sitrepSkill
- stakeholdersSkill
- strategySkill
- systemsSkill
- threatSkill
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.

