paretto-principle
Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when user asks for core concepts of X, quick domain learning, high-leverage topics, Pareto/80-20, or orientation in an unfamiliar subject.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vladcheck/skillsword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- vladcheck/skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- analyze-session-pingpong-logsSkill
- create-glossarySkill
- deepseek-reasoning-tier-clarifierSkill
- defineSkill
- find-alternativesSkill
- get-note-links-from-textSkill
- gitlab-eas-tickets-publishSkill
- gitlab-mr-roundtripSkill
- git-rebuild-branchSkill
- git-sequentialSkill
- gost-report-rebuildSkill
- mattpocock-skills-researchSkill
- mirea-moodle-downloadSkill
- obsidian-add-links-to-noteSkill
- opsx-spec-validateSkill
- publish-spec-gitlab-milestoneSkill
- publish-tickets-gitlabSkill
- solidSkill
- update-skills-via-skills-shSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
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 37
Run this algorithm on the user's message.
- Distinctive: line 84
Signal phrases in source text: Look for phrases like "the most important thing is," "at its core," "everything else builds on," "the …
- Distinctive: line 88
Do not pad: If the evidence points to 3 concepts, output 3.
- Distinctive: line 139
Don't fabricate: Every concept must be traceable to research.
- Distinctive: line 142
Ask when stuck: If you can't identify the 20%, ask the user for starting links or clarification rather than guessing.
- Distinctive: line 143
Stay at concept level: Don't drift into implementation tutorials or syntax.
- Distinctive: line 147
If you catch yourself doing any of these, you've already violated the skill:
≈ “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
Pareto Principle Research
Overview
Research any domain to identify the ~20% of concepts that produce ~80% of understanding. Find what matters, skip what doesn't.
When to Use
- "What are the core concepts of DevOps?"
- "What do I need to know about Kubernetes?"
- "Give me the essentials of SSR"
- "What should I learn first about X?"
- User mentions Pareto principle, 80/20, or "high-leverage concepts"
- User needs rapid orientation in an unfamiliar domain
When NOT to use:
- User asks for comprehensive coverage or deep-dive
- User needs implementation details (use domain-specific skill instead)
- User asks for a single fact or answer (just answer directly)
Core Pattern
[ONE topic?] → Receive topic → Gather sources → Research broadly → Find connections → Distill → PresentSTEP 0 — Single-Subject Gate
Run this algorithm on the user's message. Mechanical where possible, minimal judgment where needed.
1. Split on these separators (first match wins, case-insensitive):
- " vs " or " versus " → always split (these separate topics)
- " or ", " and ", " also " → split, then filter below
- top-level commas (not inside parentheses) → split, then filter below
2. Filter: discard pieces that are framing, not topics.
A piece is NOT a topic if it is just a verb/instruction phrase
like "research", "give me", "tell me about", "explain", "what about".
Keep pieces that name a domain, technology, or subject.
3. Evaluate:
IF remaining topic-like pieces > 1:
STOP. List them. Ask user to pick one. Discard rest permanently.
ELSE:
PROCEED to step 1.| Input | Split on | Raw pieces | After filter | Action |
| "Kubernetes" | none | ["Kubernetes"] | 1 | Proceed |
| "DevOps and Kubernetes" | "and" | ["DevOps", "Kubernetes"] | 2 | Stop |
| "monitoring, logging, and tracing" | "and" | 3 pieces | 3 | Stop |
| "React vs Vue" | "vs" | ["React", "Vue"] | 2 | Stop |
| "Research core concepts of Flexbox" | none | 1 | 1 | Proceed |
| "Load the skill then follow it. Core concepts of Git." | none | 1 | 1 | Proceed |
| "JAMstack (JavaScript, APIs, Markup)" | none (parens) | 1 | 1 | Proceed |
| "SSR? Also, hydration." | "also" | ["SSR?", "hydration."] | 2 | Stop |
| "containerization and how to monitor it" | "and" | ["containerization", "how to monitor it"] | 2 | Stop |
| "frontend (React, Vue, testing, CSS)" | none (parens) | 1 | 1 | Proceed |
If STOP: you may not continue. The only permitted action is asking the user to pick one subject. Once they answer, permanently discard the others — they do not exist for the rest of this session. Do not mention them again.
- Receive topic — Confirm scope with the user. If ambiguous ("Kubernetes" could mean ops, architecture, or dev), ask.
- Gather sources — If user provides links, start there and crawl outward. If not, search with available tools (webfetch). If stuck, ask user for starting links.
- Research broadly — Scan 3-5+ sources. Note which concepts recur. Read widely enough to distinguish universal concepts from source-specific opinions.
- Find connections — Map how concepts relate. Which are prerequisites for others? Which do practitioners reference most? Don't overthink it — look for patterns.
Distill — Identify the 20% using these concrete methods. Do not rely on intuition. Use evidence from sources:
Source concurrence: Tally every concept across all sources. Concepts appearing in 80%+ of sources are strong candidates. If 4 out of 5 independent guides mention it, it's not an opinion — it's consensus.
Dependency chain: Map which concepts are prerequisites for others. If concept B only makes sense after understanding concept A, then A is more foundational. Rank concepts by how many others depend on them. A concept that 5 others build on belongs in the 20%; a concept that nothing else depends on does not.
First-hour placement: What do sources teach first? What appears in "Getting Started" or "Fundamentals" sections? What do they relegate to "Advanced" or "Additional Topics"? Early placement across multiple sources is a strong signal.
Signal phrases in source text: Look for phrases like "the most important thing is," "at its core," "everything else builds on," "the foundation of," "if you only learn one thing." These are authors explicitly signaling foundational concepts.
Removal test: For each candidate concept, ask: if I deleted this from the explanation, would the rest still hold together? If removing it breaks understanding of multiple other concepts, it stays. If removal has no ripple effect, it goes.
Do not pad. If the evidence points to 3 concepts, output 3. If it points to 11, output 11. The domain decides the number, not aesthetics.
- Present — Output structured findings (see Output Format below).
Output Format
Your response must have these sections, in this order:
1. Decision Table (required)
List every candidate concept found across sources. This table is mandatory — it shows your work before distillation.
| Concept | Sources (of N) | Confidence (%) | Essential? (Y/N) | Why essential / Why not |
2. Core Concepts (essential only)
Define only the concepts marked Y. Each with:
**N. Concept Name** — intelligible definition in plain language. *Why it matters: one line.*Skip the non-essential ones — they already had their say in the table.
3. How They Connect
Brief explanation of relationships between the essential concepts.
4. Starting Point
The single concept to begin with, if applicable.
5. Sources
A list of links used in research. Every concept in the table must be traceable to at least one of these.
There is no fixed number of essential concepts. A tight, well-scoped domain might need only 3 concepts to unlock 80% of understanding. A broad, interconnected domain might genuinely need 12. The count is an output of your research, not a target you aim for. Let the domain decide. If a concept doesn't unlock understanding of others, it doesn't belong — regardless of how many you have so far.
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
| Presenting facts, not concepts | Concepts are mental models that transfer. Facts are one-off. |
| Skipping connections | Show how concepts relate, not just a flat list. |
| Researching too narrowly | Read enough sources to distinguish universal from specific. |
| Overthinking | Useful distillation beats academic perfection. Ship it. |
Guardrails
- Don't fabricate. Every concept must be traceable to research. If sources disagree, note the disagreement — don't resolve it by guessing.
- Don't overclaim. Mark your confidence: distinguish "universally agreed" from "appears important across sources."
- Respect the other 80%. Pareto analysis is for orientation. Explicitly acknowledge depth exists beyond these essentials.
- Ask when stuck. If you can't identify the 20%, ask the user for starting links or clarification rather than guessing.
- Stay at concept level. Don't drift into implementation tutorials or syntax. Mental models, not code.
Red Flags — STOP Immediately
If you catch yourself doing any of these, you've already violated the skill:
- Skipping Step 0 entirely and jumping straight to research
- Finding a separator ("and", "or", "vs", "also", comma) but proceeding anyway
- Rationalizing that separators don't count because the topics are "related"
- Even mentioning the discarded subject after the user picked one
- Picking the first subject and silently ignoring the rest
- Writing code examples or CLI commands instead of concepts
- Answering from memory without doing any research
These all mean: stop, course-correct, follow the skill.
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.

