Absorb
npx -y skills add andresnator/agents-orchestrator --skill absorbAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Analyze one or more external projects (git URL or local path) to extract AI-harness practices, agent patterns, or instruction logic and contrast them against this repository's harness. Not for application code review.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
5.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Absorb
Activation Contract
Use this skill when the user wants to inspect an external repository or local project to learn from its AI-harness setup: agents, skills, prompts, orchestration rules, or instruction patterns.
Do not use it for application code review, bug hunting, architecture review of the product itself, or test-quality audits.
Required Input
- One or more targets: git URL(s) and/or local path(s).
- Optional focus: skills, agents, prompts, workflows, installer patterns, or comparison themes.
If no valid target is provided, ask for it before continuing.
Hard Rules
- Analyze harness and agent configuration, not the external project's business code quality.
- Verify practices from source files, activation points, or wiring; do not promote README claims as proven behavior.
- Contrast every candidate practice against this repository before recommending adoption.
- Prefer repo-native context for the contrast step:
AGENTS.md,.ai/atl/skill-registry.md,domains/*/README.md,skills/*/SKILL.md, and relevant local artifacts. - When available, delegate read-heavy discovery to subagents or researcher passes instead of relying on memory.
- Never auto-adopt, auto-commit, or silently edit this repository as a result of the audit.
Workflow
1. Scope and resolve targets
For each target:
- If it is a local path, verify it exists.
- If it is a git URL, clone or update it only with user awareness and to a clearly stated local destination.
- Confirm the resolved target list before deep analysis.
2. Map each external harness
For each resolved target, extract:
- AI entrypoints such as
AGENTS.md,CLAUDE.md, command folders, agent folders, skill folders, config files, prompt files, and AI-related plugins. - A repo counts as a valid harness even without
AGENTS.md,agents/, orskills/trees: its AI surface may live primarily in plugins, runtime config handlers, and maintenance scripts. - How each candidate practice is triggered or wired.
- Which practices are verified versus aspirational.
For every candidate practice, capture:
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Practice | Clear name |
| Mechanism | File path and concrete evidence |
| Status | Verified / partial / aspirational |
| Strength | Why it helps |
| Weakness | Limitation or trade-off |
3. Contrast with this repository
For each candidate practice:
- Check whether this repository already has an equivalent or better approach.
- Mark
no adoption neededwhen the current harness already covers the need well. - Carry forward only genuinely better or meaningfully missing practices.
Also record at least three Our Advantages points to avoid cargo-cult adoption.
4. Adversarial filter
Challenge each surviving practice:
- Is it truly verified?
- Is it better, or just different?
- Does it fit this repo's OpenCode-only, compact, contract-focused conventions?
- Is the adoption cost proportional to the benefit?
Keep only ADOPT or CONDITIONAL items in the shortlist.
5. Deliver
Always write the report to:
.ai/absorb/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md
where <slug> is a short kebab-case name of the analysis focus or target (fallback: external-practices). Create .ai/absorb/ if it does not exist.
The report should include:
- Sources analyzed.
- One section per external project.
- Verified strengths.
- Our Advantages.
- Ranked adoption shortlist with target file paths in this repository.
- Immediate text-only wins vs. larger follow-up work.
Only when the user explicitly asks not to persist, skip the file and return the same structure as a concise chat summary.
Red Flags
- The provided path does not exist.
- The user asks for general code quality review instead of harness analysis.
- No AI-config surface is found in the external project.
- Candidate practices are documented but not wired anywhere.
Surface these explicitly; do not fabricate findings.
Verification
- Targets were resolved before deep analysis.
- Each recommended practice has file-level evidence.
- At least one
no adoption neededorOur Advantagesitem was recorded. - The shortlist excludes unverified README-only claims.
- The report file exists at the stated path (unless the user explicitly requested chat-only).
- No commit or automatic adoption was performed.
Output Contract
Return:
- resolved targets;
- key verified practices;
- rejected or conditional practices with reasons;
- our advantages;
- shortlist with proposed target paths in this repository;
- report path (always, unless the user opted out of persistence).
Attribution
Created by abdi. Adapted for this repository by andresnator.