ceo-message-triage
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use for deciding whether an incoming DingTalk message needs a reply, reaction, clarification, handoff, or no action. Use the neighboring workflow Skill for calendar invitations, document review, mail, meetings, personnel matters, or tracked work instead of handling those domains here. Load dingtalk-chat before reading context or sending a chat action.
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-pr-redteamSkill
- ai-servicesSkill
- build-work-memorySkill
- ceo-calendar-inviteSkill
- ceo-document-reviewSkill
- ceo-email-classifierSkill
- ceo-feedback-iterationSkill
- ceo-feedback-processingSkill
- ceo-mail-reviewSkill
- ceo-meeting-workSkill
- ceo-minutes-syncSkill
- ceo-personnel-communicationSkill
- ceo-wechatSkill
- ceo-work-trackingSkill
- codex-model-capacity-retrySkill
- daily-frontier-tech-discoverySkill
- dengbao-code-auditSkill
- dingtalk-browser-exportSkill
- dingtalk-knowledge-organizeSkill
- dingtalk-minutes-access-requestSkill
- dingtalk-oa-approvalSkill
- dingtang-okr-reviewSkill
- fundflow-investor-meetingSkill
- fxiaoke-crm-cliSkill
- internal-app-standardsSkill
- ocrSkill
- pm-data-adaptation-assistantSkill
- project-delivery-document-collectionSkill
- qa-generated-test-caseSkill
- senior-technical-product-evaluationSkill
- spec-intakeSkill
- sso-oidc-onboardingSkill
- stardust-interviewSkill
- production-devops-sreSkill
- stardust-ttsSkill
- startask-io-contract-auditSkill
- task-managementSkill
- transcribeSkill
- veyra-timesheetSkill
- vibe-coding-rescueSkill
- vibe-codingSkill
- video-transcribeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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 17
Read the triggering message, quoted material, and newer conversation context.
- Very specific: line 21
If a required fact is missing and a verified conversation participant can supply it, put one concrete factual question to that participant …
- Distinctive: line 23
Keep the action grounded in the source conversation and verified identities.
- Very specific: line 30
Use the canonical Consumer Agent result contract without adding workflow-specific outcome names.
≈ “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.
Files
CEO Message Triage
Determine the smallest justified response to the current message from its full conversation context. Keep domain analysis in the neighboring CEO workflow Skill.
Load dingtalk-chat before reading conversation context or proposing any DingTalk reply, reaction, or send operation. Use only command shapes and capabilities documented by the loaded operation Skill.
Triage Workflow
- Read the triggering message, quoted material, and newer conversation context. Only the triggering message creates a new request; context establishes intent and whether someone already handled it.
- Resolve mentions from the supplied identities. Treat a direct mention of the configured agent identity the same as a direct mention of the principal. A broadcast mention alone does not create principal responsibility.
- Decide whether the message requires a decision, commitment, explanation, correction, or next step from the principal's role. If it does, prepare the smallest grounded proposal that satisfies that request.
- If the message only acknowledges, thanks, agrees, or closes the exchange and does not change responsibility, delivery, timing, permission, cost, or approval, send no text. Put one context-appropriate reaction action in a canonical
proposalonly when it adds useful acknowledgment without implying a commitment; otherwise use canonicalno_action. - If a required fact is missing and a verified conversation participant can supply it, put one concrete factual question to that participant in a canonical
proposal. This is not an A/B selection and notneeds_human. - Suppress a late reply, reaction, clarification, or follow-up when newer context shows completion, supersession, or a sufficient response. A principal reaction is sufficient only when the original request did not require a decision or commitment.
- Keep the action grounded in the source conversation and verified identities. Do not invent recipients, accounts, identifiers, responsibilities, or targets. Do not create a follow-up that the message did not request.
Reuse confirmed facts from the current conversation. Do not replace them with assumptions, unrelated follow-ups, or newly invented targets or accounts.
Behavior Cases
Use the canonical Consumer Agent result contract without adding workflow-specific outcome names. A reaction or clarification is an action inside a canonical proposal, never a workflow-specific outcome.
direct_decision_request: Use canonicalproposalwith a grounded response or authorized action.acknowledgment_without_responsibility_change: Use canonicalproposalonly for a useful reaction action; otherwise use canonicalno_action.broadcast_without_principal_action: Use canonicalno_action.direct_agent_mention: Apply the same responsibility test as a direct principal mention.participant_can_supply_missing_fact: Use canonicalproposalwith one concrete clarification action.newer_context_completed_matter: Use canonicalno_action.
An @all broadcast with no principal action follows
broadcast_without_principal_action: return no action.
Consumer A remains read-only and proposes any reply, clarification, or reaction. Audit B independently loads the same business and operation Skills, checks their exact receipts and current conversation state, and alone executes an approved effect.
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.

