Install
$ agentstack add skill-ralfyishere-rules-with-receipts-extract-approach ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Extract Approach
Purpose
Hard-won knowledge evaporates when the session ends. This skill converts a solved problem into a durable asset: a short note future sessions can read in 30 seconds and apply. It is the persistence half of learning — self-improvement-loop corrects course within a session; this skill writes the reusable residue across sessions.
When to use this skill
After (not during) solving something non-trivial, when at least one of these is true:
- The solution created a new pattern worth reusing (an approach, a decision rule, a fixture design).
- The work exposed a recurring failure mode (yours, the model's, or the system's).
- The outcome changes how future work should be done (a tool quirk discovered, a wrong assumption corrected, a workflow that repeated for the second time).
When NOT to use this skill
- Trivial or routine tasks — a note nobody will need is clutter, and clutter kills the index.
- Knowledge the repo already records (code comments, git history, existing docs, existing skills). Don't duplicate; link.
- Mid-task — finish and verify first. Notes about unverified solutions record guesses.
Operating procedure
- Check the bar. Does this meet one of the three criteria above? If not, stop — no note.
- Check for an existing note or skill covering the same ground (
ls .claude/learnings/, skim titles). If one exists, update it instead of creating a near-duplicate. - Write the note to
.claude/learnings/YYYY-MM-DD-short-title.md(kebab-case title, today's date) using_template.md:
#
- **Problem:** what was broken/needed, one line.
- **Context:** where this applies (project, tool, situation), one line.
- **What worked:** the approach that solved it, 1-3 lines.
- **What failed / almost failed:** the dead ends or near-misses, 1-2 lines.
- **Decision rule:** "Next time X, do Y" — mechanical enough to follow cold.
- **Verification:** how to confirm the approach worked, one line.
- **Related skills:** [links to skills this touches]
- **Disposition:** learning-note | promote-to-skill | update-skill: | update-snippet
- Set the disposition honestly. Most notes stay notes. Mark
promote-to-skillonly when the pattern has now recurred and has a clear trigger; markupdate-skillwhen an existing skill was wrong or incomplete (and say what to change);update-snippetis reserved for rules that must be always-on. - Keep it under ~15 lines. If it needs more, the reusable core hasn't been found yet — compress to the decision rule and verification step; details can point to the session/commit.
Quality bar
- A cold reader can apply the decision rule without having lived this session.
- The "what failed" line names a specific dead end, not "initial approaches didn't work."
- No vague lessons: "be careful with X" fails the bar; "cast configparser values before arithmetic — they are always strings" passes.
- The note is findable: title says what it's about; date is real.
Common failure modes
- Journal creep: narrating the session instead of extracting the rule. The note is the residue, not the story.
- Fake profundity: "always verify assumptions" — true, useless, already in the pack. If the pack already says it, don't re-note it.
- Note inflation: recording every task until the directory is noise and nothing gets read. The bar in step 1 is the feature.
- Write-and-forget disposition: everything marked
learning-noteforever; promotions never happen. The weekly review inMAINTENANCE-CADENCE.mdexists to force the decision. - Skipping the duplicate check: three notes about the same trap, each slightly different, none authoritative.
Example
.claude/learnings/2026-07-07-subagents-inherit-skill-snapshot.md
# Subagents can't test skill discovery
- **Problem:** Needed clean eval conditions; subagent "fresh" runs saw stale skill lists.
- **Context:** Claude Code — any eval or test of skill triggering.
- **What worked:** Fresh `claude -p` headless runs in isolated dirs outside the pack's tree.
- **What failed:** Agent-tool subagents — they inherit the parent session's skill snapshot.
- **Decision rule:** Next time behavior-under-skills must be tested, use `claude -p` in a temp dir, never a subagent.
- **Verification:** Ask the session to list its available skills; compare against the dir.
- **Related skills:** [delegation-discipline], [live-state-truth]
- **Disposition:** learning-note
Works with sibling skills
self-improvement-loopfeeds this: its in-session AAR is often the draft of the note; this skill decides what survives the session.memory-hygienegoverns the same persistence filter (durable? still true in 3 months?) — apply its cold-read test here.- Promotions flow to new skills via the interview prompt (
WORKFLOW-SKILL-INTERVIEW-PROMPT.md) and to always-on rules viaCLAUDE-MD-SNIPPET.md.
Provenance and maintenance
Added 2026-07 as the persistence layer of the pack: skills improve behavior in-session; this makes hard sessions leave assets behind. Re-verify via the weekly cadence (.claude/MAINTENANCE-CADENCE.md): if the learnings directory is empty after weeks of hard work, the trigger isn't firing; if it's bloated with trivia, the step-1 bar needs raising.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: ralfyishere
- Source: ralfyishere/rules-with-receipts
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.