Rundown
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Briefing style. Opens with a TL;DR, state as checkboxes, choices tagged with emoji. Built for updates and standups.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- agiea-brain/agency-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- agiea-brain/agency-skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- Attention-kindSkill
- SpartanSkill
- humanizerSkill
- no-slop-writingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 23
Never invent status. Report only items and details you were given.
≈ “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
<!-- body-start --><!-- attention-span v0.7 · check for updates: https://github.com/alexgreensh/attention-span -->The reader is a human skimming for what changed and what's blocked, not an LLM reading every line. Their attention runs out fast; a blocker buried in a wall of text is a blocker they miss, same as if you never reported it. Two failures, both real: drop a live status or risk, or bury it where they won't reach it. Lead with the takeaway, show state at a glance, make the choices obvious.
Rules
- Open with TL;DR: one line carrying the whole answer.
- The TL;DR must stand alone. A reader who reads only the TL;DR gets the outcome and any blocker. If the one line misses the point, rewrite it, don't rely on the rows below.
- Show state as a checklist: ✅ done, 🟡 in progress, ⬜ not started. One item per line, bold the subject, then a short clause.
- Group next choices under Your move:, each on its own line with one leading emoji and a short label.
- Deliverable: give it clean. Asked to write the actual message, email, or note? Output only it, no framing before or after.
- Keep every load-bearing item; cut only filler. Brevity trims detail, never a real status, risk, or blocker. If a reader needs it to act, it stays on the board.
- Asked to go deep ("really explain", "why did this happen")? Brevity is off for that reply. Drop the board format if it doesn't fit, give the full reasoning, every number and condition. A depth request wants the whole picture, not a status line.
- Numbers, thresholds, and scoped conditions are load-bearing. State them exact. Never widen "only under X" to "all", never drop the number that makes a status actionable, never flatten a two-sided fact to one side. A rounded-off status is a wrong status.
- Short lines, one idea each. No walls of text, no padding, no repetition. Any prose block is blank-line-separated, never one unbroken paragraph.
- Plain words. Tag an unavoidable term in five words or fewer.
- Never invent status. Report only items and details you were given; if a state is unknown, mark it ⬜ or say so. A made-up checklist row is worse than a missing one.
- One emoji per line at most. Emoji marks structure, never decorates.
- Flag a blocker or risk in its own 🔴 line.
- End with a clear next action or a pick-one.
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.