agentleFS
wordbrickswordbricks/onequery/.agents/skills/agentic-legibility/SKILL.md

agentic-legibility

Skill17 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Score a repository's agentic legibility from repo-visible evidence only. Use when Codex needs to audit how easy a codebase is for coding agents to discover, bootstrap, validate, and navigate, especially for harness-engineering reviews, developer-experience audits, repo cleanup, or before/after comparisons after improving docs, tooling, or architectural constraints.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈13

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Keep the main score limited to evidence present in version control.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Use metric selection when you want to split scoring across multiple hosted-shell or Responses API runs and aggregate the JSON results …

    line 16
  3. Very specific:

    Run scripts/score_repo.py against the target repository.

    line 30
  4. Very specific:

    Check the reported evaluated_scope and discovered_scopes.

    line 31
  5. Very specific:

    If the repo has multiple plausible sub-scopes, inspect the root README or user instructions and rerun with --scope when needed.

    line 32
  6. Very specific:

    Read references/scorecard.md only if you need the exact rubric, want to explain edge cases, or need to adjust recommendations.

    line 33
  7. Distinctive:

    Run the detector from the skill directory or pass an absolute path:

    line 39
  8. Distinctive:

    Default output is JSON for post-processing.

    line 51
  9. Distinctive:

    When nested scopes are discovered, the JSON includes both the selected scope and the discovered candidates.

    line 53
  10. Distinctive:

    Treat scores as heuristics, not proof.

    line 57
  11. Distinctive:

    Prefer repo evidence over inference from naming alone.

    line 58
  12. Distinctive:

    Call out confidence when the signal is weak or ecosystem-specific.

    line 59
  13. Distinctive:

    Keep recommendations concrete and mechanical: add a file, add a command, add a rule, add a doc index.

    line 60
  14. Distinctive:

    When only a subset of metrics is requested, treat the aggregate score as a score over that subset only.

    line 62
  15. Distinctive:

    Keep the score repo-visible only.

    line 66
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not fold proxy metrics such as CI parity, debt tracking, or entropy control into the main score in this skill version.

    line 67
  17. Distinctive:

    Prefer conservative scores when a docs tree exists but indexing or routing is weak.

    line 68

≈ “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

Agentic Legibility

Overview

Measure how legible a repository is to coding agents using seven repo-visible metrics: bootstrap self-sufficiency, task entrypoints, validation harness, lint and format gates, agent repo map, structured docs, and decision records.

The scorer can auto-discover nested scopes such as client/, server/, or language-specific subtrees when the repo clearly routes work into a self-contained subsystem with its own manifests, commands, or agent docs.

Keep the main score limited to evidence present in version control. Do not claim branch protection, CI reliability, team habits, or other external-system properties unless the user asks for a separate operational review.

Use metric selection when you want to split scoring across multiple hosted-shell or Responses API runs and aggregate the JSON results upstream.

Hosted Use

This folder is the skill bundle you upload or register when you want to mount agentic-legibility into hosted shell.

Public docs for that workflow:

Workflow

  1. Run scripts/score_repo.py against the target repository.
  2. Check the reported evaluated_scope and discovered_scopes.
  3. If the repo has multiple plausible sub-scopes, inspect the root README or user instructions and rerun with --scope when needed.
  4. Read references/scorecard.md only if you need the exact rubric, want to explain edge cases, or need to adjust recommendations.
  5. Inspect a small number of files manually only when the script reports low confidence or the evidence looks stale.
  6. Report the selected metric scores, concrete evidence, the largest gaps, and the highest-value next fixes.

Commands

Run the detector from the skill directory or pass an absolute path:

python3 scripts/score_repo.py /path/to/repo
python3 scripts/score_repo.py /path/to/repo --list-scopes
python3 scripts/score_repo.py /path/to/repo --scope client
python3 scripts/score_repo.py /path/to/repo --metric bootstrap_self_sufficiency --metric task_entrypoints
python3 scripts/score_repo.py /path/to/repo --metric validation_harness,lint_format_gates --format markdown
python3 scripts/score_repo.py --list-metrics
python3 scripts/score_repo.py /path/to/repo --exclude node_modules --exclude dist

Default output is JSON for post-processing. Use Markdown only when you want a human-readable report directly in a reply.

When nested scopes are discovered, the JSON includes both the selected scope and the discovered candidates. Treat nested AGENTS.md files as subtree guidance, not automatically as a full repo-wide map.

Reporting Rules

  • Treat scores as heuristics, not proof.
  • Prefer repo evidence over inference from naming alone.
  • Call out confidence when the signal is weak or ecosystem-specific.
  • Keep recommendations concrete and mechanical: add a file, add a command, add a rule, add a doc index.
  • Prioritize metrics with the lowest score and the highest leverage on agent workflows.
  • When only a subset of metrics is requested, treat the aggregate score as a score over that subset only.

Limits

  • Keep the score repo-visible only.
  • Do not fold proxy metrics such as CI parity, debt tracking, or entropy control into the main score in this skill version.
  • Prefer conservative scores when a docs tree exists but indexing or routing is weak. It is better to recognize existing structure and recommend tightening it than to suggest artifacts that are already present.

Resources

  • scripts/score_repo.py: Scan a repository and emit JSON by default, with optional metric selection for split or parallel runs.
  • references/scorecard.md: Define the seven metrics, scoring rubric, and recommendation style.

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.