convergence
Skill3 starsChanged 44 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when `harness gate` has printed DECISION: CONVERGED, CONTINUE, or ESCALATED and the loop must finish, resume, or stop. Applies autonomous convergence policy rules with no scoring.
- Commits and pushes
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- engineering-harnessSkill
- adversarial-reviewSkill
- collect-evidenceSkill
- complexity-reviewerSkill
- diagnosability-reviewSkill
- engineering-harnessSkill
- minimal-implementationSkill
- quality-gateSkill
- reproduce-findingSkill
- task-contractSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Very specific: line 32
Never harness transition CONVERGED.
- Very specific: line 48
Only DECISION: CONTINUE with DIRECTIVE: RESUME_TYPED_RECOVERY permits resume.
- Distinctive: line 63
Do not retry a command that failed because a credential is unavailable, authorization was denied, or an external side effect was refused.
- Very specific: line 98
When DECISION: CONTINUE and DIRECTIVE: RESUME_TYPED_RECOVERY both appear on a successful Gate call, resume and rerun harness gate …
- Very specific: line 104
Never reset iteration to dodge max_iterations.
≈ “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
Convergence Skill
Decide whether the harness loop continues based on harness gate deterministic
evaluations. Uses fixed rules only — no scoring, no model confidence.
Workflow Commands
harness gate preflight
harness impact scope --format yaml
harness evidence run --type unit_test --command "pytest"
harness evidence attach --type build --file external-proof.json
harness finding resume-review FND-001Rules
PASS
harness gate prints DECISION: CONVERGED
→ harness transition DONE
→ report to user with gate output attachedNever harness transition CONVERGED. Only harness gate may enter CONVERGED.
Continue
A printed DECISION: CONTINUE with DIRECTIVE: RESUME_TYPED_RECOVERY from harness gate grants autonomous permission
to resume via typed recovery, repair within bounds, and rerun harness gate
without prompting the user to continue.
harness gate prints DECISION: CONTINUE (transitioned GATING -> BLOCKED, iteration incremented)
→ run harness resume
→ repair within bounded scope
→ collect fresh evidence
→ run harness gateOnly DECISION: CONTINUE with DIRECTIVE: RESUME_TYPED_RECOVERY permits resume. If directive is absent, unknown, or conflicts with decision, stop and inspect persisted task; do not follow Next: or call harness resume. This is not a request for routine continue permission.
Blocker dispatch from harness resume:
- open finding → REPRODUCING (via reproduce-finding)
- unverified requirement / red verification → IMPLEMENTING
Escalate
DECISION: ESCALATED from harness gate, or any human/skill escalation trigger,
immediately stops autonomous execution. No SPECIFYING, IMPLEMENTING, or
evidence-collection resume is permitted. DIRECTIVE: NONE on CONVERGED or
ESCALATED ends the loop. It is not permission to resume. An unrecognized
DIRECTIVE is not permission to resume, and a free-text Next: line is not
a command.
Do not retry a command that failed because a credential is unavailable, authorization was denied, or an external side effect was refused. Escalate immediately.
Precedence is strictly fixed: USER_AUTHORITY_REQUIRED > REPEATED_REGRESSION > NO_PROGRESS > MAX_ITERATIONS.
user authority required by current Gate blockers -> detected by harness gate (USER_AUTHORITY_REQUIRED)
same finding VERIFIED then open again (regression) -> detected by harness gate (REPEATED_REGRESSION)
identical blocker fingerprint repeated (no progress) -> detected by harness gate (NO_PROGRESS)
iteration >= max_iterations -> detected by harness gate (MAX_ITERATIONS)
same invariant repeatedly violated -> human/skill declares
test suite unstable -> human/skill declares
architecture defect suspected -> human/skill declares
spec ambiguity blocks verification -> human/skill declaresOutput exactly one reason code:
SPEC_AMBIGUITY | ARCHITECTURE_DEFECT | REPEATED_REGRESSION |
UNSTABLE_TEST | REVIEW_DISAGREEMENT | MAX_ITERATIONS |
NO_PROGRESS | USER_AUTHORITY_REQUIREDCode-detected codes (USER_AUTHORITY_REQUIRED, REPEATED_REGRESSION, NO_PROGRESS, MAX_ITERATIONS) are emitted by
harness gate only during GATING. Guard contract drift or unresolved decision instead emits
POLICY: USER_AUTHORITY_REQUIRED / DIRECTIVE: HALT_AND_WAIT and preserves task state. Stop without calling harness gate or harness resume; report blocker to user. Text directive is guidance, not authenticated approval. When Gate emits DECISION: ESCALATED, stop and report reason + blockers.
For the others YOU must declare them explicitly to the user with evidence — never silently retry past a judgment-call blocker.
Hard Boundaries
- DONE only via CONVERGED → DONE, and CONVERGED only after
DECISION: CONVERGED. - ESCALATED ends the autonomous loop immediately. Report reason + full status to user;
never route to
SPECIFYING, never retry evidence collection, and do not silently continue. - When
DECISION: CONTINUEandDIRECTIVE: RESUME_TYPED_RECOVERYboth appear on a successful Gate call, resume and rerunharness gateautonomously. Otherwise stop and inspect persisted task; never infer permission fromDECISION:alone. - Autonomous operations must NEVER execute:
- git commit, git tag, or git push
- PyPI or npm publication (
npm publish,twine upload,uv publish, registry release). The user publishes those registries manually. Localpython -m buildandnpm pack --dry-runare packaging checks. Control-plane publication stays. - granting Harness authorizations (
harness auth grant ...) - accepting Decision records on behalf of user
- Never reset
iterationto dodgemax_iterations.
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.

