audit-skill
Skill42 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Contribute an independent researcher's perspective in annotation replies, and check and refine existing ThinkReader outputs.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- EJRyan89/coding-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- davisbuilds/dojotheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- gnomatix/steeringtheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- juandelossantos/another-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- evolyob/AGY_SkillBooktheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- Alexanderdunlop/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 19, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- Alexanderdunlop/skills★ 16same name
- cybertheory/asmp★ 3same name
- EJRyan89/coding-agent-skills★ 2same name
- evolyob/AGY_SkillBook★ 1same name
- juandelossantos/another-agent-skills★ 1same name
- shawn-dumas/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- davisbuilds/dojo★ 0same name
- gnomatix/steering★ 0same 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- thinkreader-annotationSkill
- abzu-app-controlSkill
- abzu-codebaseSkill
- abzu-mindmapSkill
- abzu-reportSkill
- abzu-slidesSkill
- thinkreader-summarySkill
- abzu-wikiSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 9
Do not restart a full paper review or treat all work as an error-hunting exercise.
- Very specific: line 15
Use thinkreader_context overview for the paper, original PDF, visual sources and resource paths.
- Very specific: line 18
Read output content with thinkreader_output at its resource path, following next_offset until the full target is available.
- Distinctive: line 22
Check each material claim against the relevant complete passage.
- Distinctive: line 32
Read the whole saved card and its replies before claiming it omitted a qualification.
- Distinctive: line 35
Treat contradictions in the source as source uncertainty, not permission to invent a fix.
- Distinctive: line 48
Do not edit unnecessarily.
- Distinctive: line 66
Keep progress and the final conversation concise.
“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.
Files
Audit saved work
Build on existing annotations as a second researcher; check and refine existing outputs.
Do not restart a full paper review or treat all work as an error-hunting exercise.
Resolve the target from the quoted annotation, output path, named author, current paper
and authorized shared conversation. Use thinkreader_chat when the request refers to
another Agent's work. Agents share saved content and authorized channel history, not
private runtime reasoning. Ask only if multiple plausible targets remain.
Use thinkreader_context overview for the paper, original PDF, visual sources and
resource paths. Read annotations with mode annotations, including replies, author
and current revision; follow every next_offset needed for the requested target.
Read output content with thinkreader_output at its resource path, following next_offset
until the full target is available. A completion
message or reviewed count is not evidence of what was saved or correctly understood.
Check each material claim against the relevant complete passage. Widen reading only as needed to resolve the claim. Keep each fetched page separate; never concatenate many results under one tool-output budget, clip paragraphs or filter away nonmatching text. Recover truncated output before using it. View the actual image/PDF before claiming a plot or table has been checked; keep the source label attached to each image.
Prioritize factual errors: numerical values, experimental conditions, comparison baselines, parameter direction, figure/table identity, citation targets and omissions that change the meaning. Distinguish experiments performed here from work cited by a survey, measured results from theory, and the paper's claims from interpretation. Read the whole saved card and its replies before claiming it omitted a qualification. For disputed numbers or parameter directions, cross-check the relevant method and experiment/discussion passages; one matching sentence does not settle the claim. Treat contradictions in the source as source uncertainty, not permission to invent a fix.
For annotations, contribute your own substantive perspective: an alternative explanation, a missing connection or boundary, a counterargument, or a concrete experiment that could distinguish hypotheses. Explain what the first researcher established and what your point adds. Label inference and untested hypotheses; source support for a fact does not prove your interpretation. A correct card can still invite a useful new idea. Do not paraphrase the original, mechanically agree, or force a quota of criticisms or replies.
Reply to the relevant original card with thinkreader_annotation(operation="reply"),
using its current revision as expected_annotation_revision. This is the normal output of
annotation discussion. Use operation="update" for an unambiguous factual correction or
a requested edit; preserve the original viewpoint, anchor and existing discussion.
Do not edit unnecessarily. Changed bodies display the editing Agent as the latest author. Put
disagreements and new interpretations in replies instead of replacing another researcher's
voice. Use thinkreader_annotate for a useful new independent source-linked card.
For outputs, prioritize source checks, concrete revision suggestions and small supported
corrections. Use thinkreader_output(content=..., expected_revision=...) to save warranted
minor edits. Preserve the document's structure, authorial intent and all unaffected text
and links. Propose substantial restructuring or speculative additions instead of silently
rewriting them. Never compress, truncate or reject an output because of length.
Explicit read-only/no-change requests override these write defaults. On a revision conflict,
reread the current card/file and reconcile; never blindly retry or overwrite concurrent work.
Report what was actually replied to, changed or left as a suggestion, with source locations
and any unverified material. Link every discussed annotation using its returned url as
ordinary Markdown [short card title](url), including each row in a review table.
thinkreader_context(mode="annotations") and successful thinkreader_annotation writes
return these URLs; replies link to their parent card. Use the exact returned URL, never
invent an ID or replace the link with a bare title, ID, or instructions to find the card.
Keep progress and the final conversation concise; the substantive
discussion belongs beside the relevant card or output. Never edit annotation JSON directly.
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.

