agentleFS
xingtu1996xingtu1996/xingtu-skills/skills/caveman-learn/SKILL.md

caveman-learn

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Close the loop on a Caveman learn report — review the ranked token sinks and apply cost-lowering fixes (trim config, offload recurring context to cavemem) with per-edit consent. Use when the user runs "caveman learn", asks to lower their agent's token cost, wants to trim a heavy CLAUDE.md, or wants to offload context they re-paste every session into cavemem.

10 other projects use a version of this, 8 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 4 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 4

    Common

    Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Read the plan first:

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    Run: caveman learn report --json Parse the caveman.learn.v1 JSON.

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    Run: caveman learn apply <sink_id> --dry-run (this materializes a candidate.

    line 22
  4. Common:

    Ask the user yes or no. On yes, apply the edit with your own file tools.

    line 25
  5. Very specific:

    Run: caveman learn apply <sink_id> and read the candidate JSON it writes under ~/.caveman/candidates/.

    line 33
  6. Common:

    Never make the agent dumber: before you finish, confirm that caveman mem recall "<topic>" returns a hit AND a pointer is in place.

    line 54
  7. Common:

    Every edit is reversible: report exactly what you changed.

    line 65

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

You are the Caveman Learn editing skill. The "caveman learn" command MEASURES where an agent's tokens go; you are the consent-gated half that turns its findings into edits — with the user approving each one. You never claim a saving you have not measured, and you never make the agent dumber.

Read the plan first:

  1. Run: caveman learn report --json Parse the caveman.learn.v1 JSON. Show the Cave Score, its four components, and the ranked token sinks. For each sink state its class and basis. Behavioral sinks are observations — present their numbers as fact and their suggestion softly. Do not turn a behavioral finding into an imperative.

Then, only for the sinks the user chooses to act on, run the consent loop by class.

REDUCIBLE (a heavy CLAUDE.md, a never-invoked skill):

  • Run: caveman learn apply <sink_id> --dry-run (this materializes a candidate; it does not edit anything).
  • Propose a concrete diff and show before -> after tokens/turn.
  • Ask the user yes or no. On yes, apply the edit with your own file tools.
  • Re-run caveman learn report --json (or recount the touched file) to confirm the reduction. This is the net-token-negative gate: if after is not below before, revert and report. Never keep an edit that does not reduce tokens/turn.

RECURRING_CONTEXT (a heavy block re-established across sessions; fix kind cavemem_offload): move it into cavemem so it is recalled compactly instead of re-pasted every turn. The candidate carries only a LOCATOR — never the block body.

  • Run: caveman learn apply <sink_id> and read the candidate JSON it writes under ~/.caveman/candidates/. Take only the locator, the numbers, and the proposed pointer text. Do not trust any body from the candidate; there is none.
  • Re-read the real block locally yourself: open the locator's rel_path, go to its jsonl_line, re-segment that turn the same way (split the text on blank lines, in order), pick block_index, and verify that sha256 of the raw block equals the locator's content_sha256. If it does not match, the file changed since the scan — abort this item.
  • Store it: caveman mem remember -- "<the real block>" and capture the returned id. The -- ends option parsing so a block that opens with a --- rule is stored verbatim instead of being read as a flag.
  • Measure the gate honestly. before = the block's tokens/turn (it loaded every turn). after = the pointer's tokens/turn plus the recall cost. Get the recall cost by running caveman mem recall "<topic>" and reading tokens_added on the hit. If after is not below before, run caveman mem forget <id>, leave the source untouched, and stop.
  • Trim the source and write the pointer. Remove the block from its CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md section (or, for content the user pastes by hand, tell them what to stop pasting), and write the candidate's proposed pointer text where it was. The pointer names the recall path: caveman mem recall "<topic>" for the compact form, and caveman mem recover <handle> for the byte-exact original.
  • Never make the agent dumber: before you finish, confirm that caveman mem recall "<topic>" returns a hit AND a pointer is in place. If recall returns nothing, or you did not write a pointer, REVERT (caveman mem forget <id> and restore the source). Removing context without a working recall path is the one failure this guard exists to block.
  • Re-measure and report the confirmed reduction and the recall path.

LOAD_BEARING: never touch. It appears in the report only so the score stays honest.

Binding rules:

  • Consent per edit. No "apply all" that hides the individual diffs.
  • Every edit is reversible: report exactly what you changed. An offload undoes with caveman mem forget <id> plus restoring the trimmed source.
  • inferred only. Never present a local number as verified, and never attach a currency.
  • The analyzer (caveman learn) is read-only. You are the only writer, and only after a yes.

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.