agentleFS
tydev-newtydev-new/10xjobs-careercoach/CLAUDE.md

10xjobs-careercoach

CLAUDE.md3 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub

Read docs/PROCESS.md before building or changing any skill — the ritual (design gate → issue → prior-art check → build → independent review → live run → harness → closing review) is not optional and each step carries its receipt. Precedence for every design judgment: PRINCIPLES.md → docs/design-cowork-coaching-goals.md → docs/design-cowork-coaching.md → docs/skill-shape.md. Conflicts mean the chain is wrong — fix it, don't pick a winner. Always-on interrupts (full versions + receipts in PROCESS.md): - Patch, grep-verify, and commit in ONE…

The file

We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Always-on interrupts (full versions + receipts in PROCESS.md):

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify the file, not narration: grep before believing any "written/fixed".

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Never test or solo-review a skill you authored.

    line 18
  4. Very specific:

    After skill changes, refresh the deployed copy: cp -r skills/* ~/.claude/skills/ — and know its trap: cp never deletes, so a file REMOVED …

    line 34

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md 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
CLAUDE.md

10xjobs-careercoach — working rules

Read docs/PROCESS.md before building or changing any skill — the ritual (design gate → issue → prior-art check → build → independent review → live run → harness → closing review) is not optional and each step carries its receipt.

Precedence for every design judgment: PRINCIPLES.md → docs/design-cowork-coaching-goals.md → docs/design-cowork-coaching.md → docs/skill-shape.md. Conflicts mean the chain is wrong — fix it, don't pick a winner.

Always-on interrupts (full versions + receipts in PROCESS.md):

  • Patch, grep-verify, and commit in ONE command block — a commit that claims an unverified change is a lie.
  • Verify the file, not narration: grep before believing any "written/fixed".
  • Never test or solo-review a skill you authored; spawn an independent reviewer against the precedence chain.
  • New rules bind to their trigger moment, name the failure they prevent, and get measured (multi-trial). A measured miss earns a moment rule in the loop, a hint in patterns, or a script — never a step.
  • A skill's SKILL.md is goal + loop shape (standard · budget · the measured moment rules · exits); the how lives in references/patterns.md. tests/test_invariants.py fails the moment a skill drifts from the shape.
  • Skill prose is checked like everything else — check_files.py FAILs a relative link that doesn't resolve.
  • Tests: python3 tests/run.py (pytest is not assumed). Conduct harnesses: tests/always-on/README.md has the run/judge commands; they run against fresh temp workspaces only, never a real one.
  • A real candidate workspace is personal data: never plant test data in one; harness runs use fresh temp workspaces and lock any real workspace for the run.
  • After skill changes, refresh the deployed copy: cp -r skills/* ~/.claude/skills/ — and know its trap: cp never deletes, so a file REMOVED from the repo must be removed there by hand.
  • Session transcripts and candidate data never enter the repo.

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.