agentleFS
zhangzejingzhangzejing/ThinkReader/skills/codebase-skill/SKILL.md

abzu-codebase

Skill42 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Project an ThinkReader paper into an auditable reproduction specification and acceptance target. Use for /codebase only.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Read prompts/base.md and add prompts/pro.md for deep mode.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Read rules.md, tools.md, writer.md and data/quality.json.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the App-provided codebase context, PaperMap, relevant full sections, equations, figures/tables and declared resources.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    Never invent an omitted implementation detail.

    line 32

≈ “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

ThinkReader Codebase Skill

/codebase turns a paper into a clean reproduction workspace: enough grounded detail for an engineer to implement the method and verify it against the paper without pretending that missing details are known.

Required reading order

  1. Read prompts/base.md and add prompts/pro.md for deep mode.
  2. Read rules.md, tools.md, writer.md and data/quality.json.
  3. Read the App-provided codebase context, PaperMap, relevant full sections, equations, figures/tables and declared resources.
  4. Existing annotations are optional context, never a prerequisite. If the user separately requests a reproduction-focused annotation pass, use /annotation or /deep-annotation; do not make it a hidden dependency.

File ownership

  • prompts/base.md owns implementation judgment and SPEC quality.
  • prompts/pro.md owns the deep-mode delta.
  • rules.md owns file layout, evidence and acceptance-target consistency.
  • tools.md owns assumed context, resource, evidence, validation and output capabilities.
  • data/quality.json owns deterministic quality floors.
  • writer.md owns proposal, validation and commit flow.

Non-negotiable method

  • Separate paper-stated facts, evidence-backed inferences, implementation decisions and unknowns.
  • Preserve equations, symbol names, shapes, hyperparameters, datasets, metrics and conditions exactly where stated.
  • Make SPEC.md and results.target.json agree on every target value and acceptance condition.
  • Let the LLM infer the architecture and write the specification; use tools for exact evidence copying, resource inspection, JSON assembly, cross-file consistency checks and output writes.
  • Never invent an omitted implementation detail; record it as a reproducibility risk or explicit decision.

Boundaries

Outputs live only under output/codebase/<paper_id>/. The semantic proposal never mutates PDF or Intelligence. After commit the App first appends the codebase tag to an existing annotation covering the cited evidence, including source URLs; preserve its content, author, marks, hints, replies and layout. Keep uncovered evidence and source URLs in the output citations; do not create PDF cards for evidence or URL bookkeeping. Repeated runs must not multiply cards or tags; matching and tag writes are tool work, not extra LLM output. Legacy cleaner/HTML Reader outputs, public CLI commands and old schemas are not inputs.

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.