transform
Skill6 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Convert data between formats, schemas, or representations with explicit loss accounting and validation. Use when reformatting data, mapping between schemas, normalizing inputs, or translating structures.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- exmergo/dextheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- exmergo/dex★ 116same 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 repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- attributeSkill
- auditSkill
- gap-analysis-workflowSkill
- checkpointSkill
- classifySkill
- compareSkill
- constrainSkill
- critiqueSkill
- debug-workflowSkill
- decomposeSkill
- delegateSkill
- detectSkill
- digital-twin-bootstrapSkill
- digital-twin-sync-workflowSkill
- discover-capabilitiesSkill
- discoverSkill
- executeSkill
- explainSkill
- generateSkill
- groundSkill
- inquireSkill
- integrateSkill
- invokeSkill
- measureSkill
- mutateSkill
- observeSkill
- persistSkill
- perspective-validationSkill
- planSkill
- predictSkill
- recallSkill
- receiveSkill
- retrieveSkill
- rollbackSkill
- searchSkill
- sendSkill
- simulateSkill
- stateSkill
- synchronizeSkill
- transitionSkill
- verifySkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 47
All fields mapped correctly or explicitly marked as lost
- Distinctive: line 92
Track losses: Document what was not preserved
- Distinctive: line 99
Check all required fields present
- Distinctive: line 101
Run any schema-defined constraints
- Distinctive: line 106
Document transformation rules applied
- Distinctive: line 303
Verification tools: Read (for schema validation), Grep (for pattern matching)
- Distinctive: line 313
Always document data loss explicitly
- Distinctive: line 314
Never silently drop fields without recording
- Distinctive: line 317
If transformation is ambiguous, ask for clarification
- Distinctive: line 318
Never transform sensitive data without noting it
- Distinctive: line 333
Never transform without documenting losses
- Distinctive: line 334
Never assume field type without verification
- Distinctive: line 335
Avoid chained transforms without intermediate validation
≈ “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
Intent
Transform data from one format or schema to another while tracking what information is preserved, modified, or lost during conversion. Ensure output conforms to target schema with full provenance.
Success criteria:
- Output conforms to target schema
- All fields mapped correctly or explicitly marked as lost
- Transformation is deterministic and reproducible
- Loss/distortion explicitly documented
- Evidence anchors trace source to output
Compatible schemas:
schemas/output_schema.yaml
Inputs
| Parameter | Required | Type | Description |
input | Yes | any | Data to transform |
source_format | No | string | Input format |
target_format | Yes | string | Output format |
options | No | object | Transformation options |
Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).
Procedure
- Parse source data: Load and validate input
- Identify source format (JSON, YAML, XML, CSV, etc.)
- Parse into internal representation
- Detect encoding and special characters
- Record source structure for provenance
- Analyze target schema: Understand destination requirements
- Load target schema specification (
options.schema, if given) - Identify required vs optional fields
- Note type constraints and validations
- Map nested structures
- Load target schema specification (
- Build transformation map: Match source to target
- Apply explicit mappings if provided (
options.mapping) - Infer mappings for matching field names
- Identify fields requiring type conversion
- Flag unmappable source fields
- Apply explicit mappings if provided (
- Execute transformation: Apply mappings
- Transform each field according to mapping
- Apply type conversions (string to number, etc.)
- Handle nested objects recursively
- Apply default values for missing required fields
- Track losses: Document what was not preserved
- List source fields not in output
- Note precision losses in numeric conversions
- Record truncations or format changes
- Document semantic changes
- Validate output: Confirm target schema conformance
- Check all required fields present
- Validate types match schema
- Run any schema-defined constraints
- Verify structural integrity
- Ground output: Attach provenance
- Link output fields to source locations
- Document transformation rules applied
- Record validation results
Output Contract
Return a structured object:
output: object|array # Transformed data, a mapping or a list of records
transformation:
input_type: string # Format of source data
output_type: string # Format of output data
mapping_applied: string # Reference to mapping specification
validation:
input_valid: boolean # Was source valid?
output_valid: boolean # Does output match target schema?
schema_ref: string # Target schema reference
errors: array[string] # Validation errors if any
losses:
- field: string # Source field that was lost
reason: string # Why it was not preserved
severity: info | warning | error # Impact level
changes: # Applied transformations
- source_field: string
target_field: string
conversion: string # What transformation was applied
reversible: boolean # Can be converted back?
confidence: 0..1 # Confidence in transformation correctness
evidence_anchors: ["source:field", "schema:rule"]
assumptions: [] # Explicit assumptionsField Definitions
| Field | Type | Description |
output | object | The transformed data |
transformation | object | Source and target formats and the mapping applied |
validation | object | Input and output validation results |
losses | array | Fields or data not preserved |
changes | array | Field-level transformations applied (type/format conversions, defaults) |
confidence | number | 0.0-1.0 based on mapping completeness |
evidence_anchors | array | Source references and schema rules |
assumptions | array | Assumptions made during transformation |
Examples
Example 1: JSON to YAML with Schema Validation
Input:
input:
user_id: 12345
user_name: "john_doe"
email_address: "john@example.com"
created_timestamp: 1705312800
metadata:
source: "api"
version: "2.1"
source_format: json
target_format: yaml
options:
schema:
type: object
required: [id, name, email, created_at]
properties:
id: { type: integer }
name: { type: string }
email: { type: string, format: email }
created_at: { type: string, format: date-time }
tags: { type: array, items: { type: string } }
mapping:
user_id: id
user_name: name
email_address: email
created_timestamp: created_atOutput:
output:
id: 12345
name: "john_doe"
email: "john@example.com"
created_at: "2024-01-15T10:00:00Z"
tags: []
transformation:
input_type: "json"
output_type: "yaml"
mapping_applied: "explicit_mapping_v1"
validation:
input_valid: true
output_valid: true
schema_ref: "user_schema_v2"
errors: []
losses:
- field: "metadata.source"
reason: "No mapping to target schema"
severity: info
- field: "metadata.version"
reason: "No mapping to target schema"
severity: info
changes:
- source_field: "created_timestamp"
target_field: "created_at"
conversion: "unix_epoch to ISO8601 datetime"
reversible: true
- source_field: "tags"
target_field: "tags"
conversion: "default empty array added"
reversible: false
confidence: 0.9
evidence_anchors:
- "source:user_id -> target:id"
- "schema:required_fields_present"
- "conversion:timestamp_to_iso8601"
assumptions:
- "Unix timestamp is in seconds, not milliseconds"
- "Timezone is UTC"Evidence pattern: Field-by-field mapping documented, schema validation confirms conformance.
Example 2: CSV to Structured Object
Input:
input: "name,age,city\nAlice,30,NYC\nBob,25,LA"
source_format: csv
target_format: json
options:
schema:
type: object
properties:
records:
type: array
items:
type: object
properties:
full_name: { type: string }
age_years: { type: integer }
location: { type: string }
mapping:
name: full_name
age: age_years
city: locationOutput:
output:
records:
- full_name: "Alice"
age_years: 30
location: "NYC"
- full_name: "Bob"
age_years: 25
location: "LA"
transformation:
input_type: "csv"
output_type: "json"
mapping_applied: "csv_to_object_mapping"
validation:
input_valid: true
output_valid: true
schema_ref: "person_array_schema"
errors: []
losses: []
changes:
- source_field: "age"
target_field: "records[].age_years"
conversion: "string to integer"
reversible: true
- source_field: "(rows)"
target_field: "records"
conversion: "CSV rows wrapped as an array under records"
reversible: true
confidence: 0.95
evidence_anchors:
- "source:row_count=2"
- "schema:all_required_present"
assumptions:
- "CSV uses comma delimiter"
- "First row is header"
- "No quoted fields with commas"Verification
- Output validates against target schema
- All required fields are present
- Type conversions are correct
- Losses are explicitly documented
- Transformation is reproducible
Verification tools: Read (for schema validation), Grep (for pattern matching)
Safety Constraints
mutation: falserequires_checkpoint: falserequires_approval: falserisk: low
Capability-specific rules:
- Always document data loss explicitly
- Never silently drop fields without recording
- Validate output against schema before returning
- Flag precision loss in numeric conversions
- If transformation is ambiguous, ask for clarification
- Never transform sensitive data without noting it
Composition Patterns
Commonly follows:
receive- Transform incoming messages to canonical formretrieve- Transform retrieved data to expected formatinspect- Understand source before transformation
Commonly precedes:
send- Format data before external transmissionintegrate- Prepare data for mergingvalidate- Check transformed output
Anti-patterns:
- Never transform without documenting losses
- Never assume field type without verification
- Avoid chained transforms without intermediate validation
Workflow references:
- See
reference/composition_patterns.md#digital-twin-sync-loopfor transform in data pipeline - See
reference/composition_patterns.md#enrichment-pipelinefor transform context
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.

