create-great-harness
Skill5 starsChanged 54 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when an app is missing AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md, or the user asks for a minimal agent system.
In this repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-feedbackSkill
- asking-peer-agentsSkill
- boss-assistantSkill
- boss-saySkill
- bringing-coworkerSkill
- choosing-graphSkill
- contacting-orchestratorsSkill
- dispatching-workSkill
- handoff-orchestratorSkill
- i-am-orchestratorSkill
- initSkill
- notifying-main-agentSkill
- peeking-workSkill
- reporting-to-userSkill
- resolving-appSkill
- shipping-taskSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
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 16
Read existing instructions, manifests, lockfiles, and relevant project documentation.
- Distinctive: line 20
Create missing files from the applicable shared instructions.
- Distinctive: line 21
Use relevant sections such as Role, Scope, and Standards, omitting empty sections.
- Distinctive: line 22
Keep each instruction actionable and grounded in project evidence.
- Distinctive: line 27
Test both a blocking input and an allowed input using the provider's actual hook payload and decision contract.
- Distinctive: line 29
Use the installed provider's current contract for paths and hook behavior.
- Distinctive: line 33
If the specification cannot be verified, report that unresolved artifact.
- Distinctive: line 37
Check both instruction files and any optional artifacts against the confirmed scope.
≈ “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
Establish the scope
Build or fill the app's AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md.
Reuse authorization from the user request or dispatch instruction.
Optional hooks and authoring rules require concrete project evidence and authorization covering that addition.
Carry source changes through the target's leveraging-tasks workflow when available, retaining the confirmed scope and findings.
Read and write
Read existing instructions, manifests, lockfiles, and relevant project documentation. Retain project-specific conventions and boundaries a fresh agent cannot readily derive from those sources. A near-empty instruction file is valid for an idiomatic app.
Create missing files from the applicable shared instructions; preserve existing text within the authorized scope. Use relevant sections such as Role, Scope, and Standards, omitting empty sections. Keep each instruction actionable and grounded in project evidence.
Optional guard or authoring rule
For an authorized guard, inspect the provider's existing hook configuration and resolve a conflicting event/matcher before writing. Test both a blocking input and an allowed input using the provider's actual hook payload and decision contract. Merge the configuration, read it back, and report any activation or restart requirement. Use the installed provider's current contract for paths and hook behavior.
For an authorized skill-authoring rule, verify the provider's current skill and rule specifications. Scope the rule to its skill directory, record the source and date, and preserve existing rules. If the specification cannot be verified, report that unresolved artifact.
Report
Check both instruction files and any optional artifacts against the confirmed scope. Report the written files, their line counts, and outstanding recommendations or activation steps. A dispatched worker reports its outcome through notifying-main-agent.
Complete when: scoped artifacts are verified and the result distinguishes completed writes from remaining work.
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.

