agentleFS
wedsamuel1230wedsamuel1230/embedded-engineering-skills/skills/library-selection/SKILL.md

library-selection

Skill28 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when selecting, replacing, pinning, or auditing an Arduino, ESP32, RP2040, C++, or vendor-framework library. Compare architecture support, framework and version compatibility, API behavior, footprint, maintenance, provenance, security, and hardware assumptions before installation.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    Treat a library as part of the firmware and hardware contract.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Check open issues and maintenance signals without treating stars or install count as compatibility proof.

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Run a minimal compile fixture, then a simulated or target behavior check.

    line 32
  4. Distinctive:

    Use the shared Arduino skill contract: state assumptions, required tools and versions, implementation steps, tests/evidence by proof stage, …

    line 54

≈ “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

Library Selection

Treat a library as part of the firmware and hardware contract. A popular package that compiles for one architecture may still use incompatible pins, timers, memory, bus assumptions, or APIs on another.

Intake

Record exact board/module, architecture, Arduino core or vendor SDK, compiler, toolchain, required API, bus/pin constraints, memory budget, license boundary, update policy, and whether the device is connected or field-updatable.

Process

  1. Find the upstream source, release/tag, license, supported architectures, and framework instructions. Prefer primary repositories and current release notes.
  2. Compare candidate API fit, board variants, transitive dependencies, flash/ SRAM/heap impact, blocking behavior, concurrency, bus/pull-up assumptions, and error/recovery behavior.
  3. Check open issues and maintenance signals without treating stars or install count as compatibility proof.
  4. Select a pinned version, record provenance and rationale, and document unsupported board/framework branches.
  5. Run a minimal compile fixture, then a simulated or target behavior check.

Anti-rationalization

ShortcutResponse
"It has many installs."Verify architecture, core version, API, and hardware contract.
"The newest version is best."Read release notes, compatibility, footprint, and regression history.
"The I2C scanner found it."Test library initialization, register reads, timing, and error paths.
"It worked on AVR."Recheck ESP32/S3/Pico architecture, pins, timers, and memory.
"The dependency is only a helper."Include transitive code and license/security review.

Verification

  • Candidate comparison contains source, version, architecture, and license.
  • Minimal compile output names the exact FQBN/environment and dependency resolution.
  • Memory delta and one runtime/simulation behavior result are recorded.
  • Connected devices have a dependency update and secret-handling plan.

Shared output contract

Use the shared Arduino skill contract: state assumptions, required tools and versions, implementation steps, tests/evidence by proof stage, known limitations, and recovery/security notes.

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.