agentleFS
theyoungastronautstheyoungastronauts/polaris/skills/actionable/SKILL.md

actionable

Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Pull just the do-this-yourself steps out of a long answer, so the user doesn't have to read the whole thing.

  • Reads credentials

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Keep an item only if it needs the user personally:

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    If you can do the rest, one line:

    line 50
  3. Distinctive:

    If nothing needs them, one line and stop:

    line 56
  4. Distinctive:

    Reporting what you noticed along the way: No findings, no asides, no "one thing worth flagging."

    line 67
  5. Distinctive:

    Explaining why: Only if they can't act without it, and then as a clause.

    line 71

≈ “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

Actionable

The user got a long answer — "I did a bunch of things, and also you need to do these two things" — and doesn't have time to read it. Find the two things. Print them. Stop.

This is a reading task, not an investigation

Do not use tools, with one exception: when the user explicitly names a source (a file path or URL as the argument), one read of that one thing. No git, no greps, no checking other repos, no reading config, no verifying anything against the environment, no opening anything beyond the named source. In the default case the answer is already in the conversation; go get it out.

If a real investigation is warranted, that's a different request and the user will make it. Going off to check things is the main way this skill fails: it turns a five-second answer into a minute of tool calls and surfaces findings nobody asked for.

Source

  • Default: the last assistant message, plus the few before it if the thread is one continuous piece of work. Nothing older, nothing outside this conversation.
  • A file path or URL passed as an argument: read that one thing. It's the only file you open.
  • Text pasted after the command: that text.

The filter

Keep an item only if it needs the user personally:

  • A credential, key, or secret they must obtain or paste
  • A click in a web console they're logged into (Vercel, Porter, Cloudflare, Stripe, a cloud provider)
  • A purchase, plan upgrade, quota increase, or billing change
  • An approval, signature, invite, or permission grant
  • A physical or account action (plug in a device, verify an email, enable 2FA)
  • A choice you can't make for them

Drop everything else. Installing, configuring, migrating, coding, running a local service — yours, not theirs.

Also drop anything the conversation already says is done. That's from what you've read, not from going and checking.

Output

Two or three items, usually. Numbered, ordered so nothing blocks the next. No preamble, no recap, no closing summary — the whole point is that the user isn't reading the long version.

One imperative line each. Add the exact place or a paste-ready value on a second line only when the line is useless without it:

1. Add ANTHROPIC_API_KEY to Vercel (marquee → Settings → Environment Variables, all envs)
2. Create the Discord webhook and send me the URL
   Server Settings → Integrations → Webhooks → New

If you can do the rest, one line:

I can handle the rest — say go.

If nothing needs them, one line and stop:

Nothing needs you. I can do all of it — say go.

More than five items means the source was a plan, not an answer. Give the ones that come first and say in one line what the rest are waiting on.

Common mistakes

  • Going and checking. The most common failure. Read; don't verify.
  • Reporting what you noticed along the way. No findings, no asides, no "one thing worth flagging."
  • Listing your own work. "Install the dependency" is not a step for the user.
  • Following the source's structure. You're replacing it, not summarizing it.
  • Vague placement. Name the provider, the project, and the screen.
  • Explaining why. Only if they can't act without it, and then as a clause.

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.