agentleFS
stardustaistardustai/stardust-skills/skills/ceo-feedback-iteration/SKILL.md

ceo-feedback-iteration

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when an Agent is asked to classify and improve open repository feedback through the managed feedback-iteration capability. The Skill owns the bounded diagnosis and decision protocol; the service owns capability state, persistence, and lifecycle transitions.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use only the local Console API at http://127.0.0.1:8765/api/console/feedback.

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    Read the batch and every selected detail before changing a Skill, configuration, or code.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Use brainstorming only if a material product or policy uncertainty remains.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask one focused user question at a time, offering alternatives and a recommendation.

    line 23
  5. Very specific:

    Before any change, persist one typed decision through POST /api/console/feedback/batches/{batch_id}/decisions.

    line 25
  6. Very specific:

    Use exactly one scope: skill_only when policy/procedure is deficient but data, tool, and route exist.

    line 29
  7. Distinctive:

    Read back the decision and batch history.

    line 38

≈ “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

CEO Feedback Iteration

Use only the local Console API at http://127.0.0.1:8765/api/console/feedback. Read the batch and every selected detail before changing a Skill, configuration, or code. Treat feedback_key as the stable identity. The supplied persisted summary, detail references, runtime configuration, loaded revision numbers, and SHA values are factual context; do not ask a model to regenerate a summary or invent IDs. Direct SQLite writes are forbidden.

Bounded discussion profile

  1. Establish the observed behavior and loaded capability facts, then identify the likely root-cause class.
  2. Use brainstorming only if a material product or policy uncertainty remains. Ask one focused user question at a time, offering alternatives and a recommendation. Do not require discussion when the facts establish the path.
  3. Before any change, persist one typed decision through POST /api/console/feedback/batches/{batch_id}/decisions. Include the current feedback_key values, persisted references, root cause, acceptance scenario, expected behavior, and verification.
  4. Use exactly one scope: skill_only when policy/procedure is deficient but data, tool, and route exist; runtime_config when a valid capability is incorrectly bound or disabled; code when a required capability is missing or defective; mixed only when both are needed; needs_human for missing reusable policy, authorization, or indispensable business facts.
  5. Execute only the persisted path. needs_human never resolves feedback.

Verification boundary

Read back the decision and batch history. Record path-specific evidence through the feedback API; a later resolution must prove the selected path, including the active runtime/load receipt for Skill or configuration work, or commit and tests for code work. Never claim a new batch while feedback iteration is disabled, and never change generic brainstorming to encode this protocol.

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.