Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

inherit-legacy-style

Extract unwritten coding conventions from an existing project and turn them into an AI style rules file. Resolve conflicting patterns with the user, identify example files, and update the rules as the codebase changes.

OriginalShow the original description

Prevent AI style drift on legacy projects by scanning the codebase for implicit conventions, resolving conflicts with the operator one at a time, and writing an enforceable .ai-style-rules.md (Golden Files, naming rules, DONTs) plus an optional CLAUDE.md hook. Use when onboarding an AI agent onto a hand-written legacy codebase or extracting a project's unwritten coding rules.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Introducing an AI agent to a legacy codebase
  • Documenting unwritten coding conventions
  • Resolving conflicting naming and structural patterns
  • Updating style rules after adding a module

Overview

What it does

inherit-legacy-style examines existing code and creates .ai-style-rules.md for AI agents to consult when writing new code. It extracts conventions in four areas: declaration order, naming for state and control flow, placement of shared functionality, and error handling. The file collects real examples, specific naming rules, and patterns to avoid. When approaches differ substantially, it asks the user to resolve each conflict separately.

When it helps

Use it when introducing an AI agent to an older, human-written project or documenting coding conventions that have never been written down. If rules already exist, it compares them with recent changes and appends an evolution history while retaining earlier records. It chooses between reading the whole project and sampling files according to project size.

Example requests

  • “Examine this existing project’s coding style and document rules for AI agents.”
  • “Compare the new module with the existing rules and record any updates needed.”

Notes

Read and write access to the project root is required. Git is recommended; without it, change comparisons use file modification times. Any language or framework can be used. Referencing the rules through CLAUDE.md and enforcing them through editing hooks are optional choices. Example files guide structure, but their bugs should not be copied.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Document check

AI checked the SKILL.md for operations that need care and for setup requirements. The score comes only from actually running the skill (hands-on test).

SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodRoot-level file writes are identified, hook installation requires a user choice, and existing rules must not be overwritten.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
AGoodIt states root read/write permissions, recommends Git, and explains the file-timestamp fallback when Git is unavailable.

Not counted in the score. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md8.2 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Inherit Legacy Style

Prevents AI code style drift in legacy projects by scanning the codebase for implicit conventions across 4 meta-architecture dimensions, resolving conflicts with the user one at a time, and crystallizing the consensus into an enforceable .ai-style-rules.md. Fully language- and framework-agnostic.

When to Activate

  • User types /inherit-legacy-style
  • User mentions onboarding AI onto a hand-written legacy project
  • User is worried about AI-generated code "drifting" from existing project conventions
  • User wants to extract and codify their project's implicit coding rules

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to preserve legacy project style and prevent AI-generated style drift. See When to Activate above for trigger conditions.

Prerequisites

  • Git (recommended; non-Git projects fall back to file timestamps for incremental mode)
  • Read/Write access to the project root (generates .ai-style-rules.md and optionally CLAUDE.md)

Workflow

Step 0 — Auto-Detect Mode

Silently check for .ai-style-rules.md at the project root:

File exists?Mode
NoBranch A — First-time Full-Scan
YesBranch B — Incremental Sniff

Announce the mode in one line and proceed — never ask the user to pick.

Branch A — First-time Full-Scan

1. Measure scale, pick a scanning tier

git ls-files | grep -cE '\.(js|ts|jsx|tsx|vue|py|go|rs|java|kt|rb|php|cs|swift|c|cpp|h)$'
TierSource filesStrategy
Small≲ 50Full close-read every source
Medium50–500Infra layer = full read; business layer = sample 2–3 per dimension
Large≳ 500Strict sampling + budget cap; --stat summary first, then targeted reads

2. Scan along 4 dimensions

  1. File Anatomy — in-file declaration order (imports → types → main logic → helpers → export)
  2. State & Control Flow — naming conventions for async state, pagination, flags
  3. Infrastructure — where cross-cutting utils live (interceptors, formatters, middleware)
  4. Error Handling — try/catch vs global interceptor vs Result return; null-check habits

3. Apply signal-threshold noise reduction

Before interrupting the user, evaluate signal strength:

  • Weak signal → auto-suppress: minority <5% AND count <10 → majority wins, minority goes to DONTs
  • Strong signal → grill: near-even split, or semantic fork on a core dimension
  • Small-project exception: sources ≲50, "3 vs 2" is NOT a majority → grill it

4. Resolve conflicts one at a time (Grilling Protocol)

For each strong-signal conflict, present exactly ONE question with 4 options:

Evidence: pathA uses style X, pathB uses style Y WARNING: Risk: mixing both fractures the project style Choose: 1 follow X 2 follow Y 3 this is evolution, update rules 4 I have a new rule

Suspend until the user answers, then proceed to the next conflict. Never stack questions.

5. Generate .ai-style-rules.md with three mandatory sections:

  • [Golden Files] — real exemplar paths annotated with what they demonstrate
  • [Naming & State-Control Rules] — concrete, checkable conventions
  • [DONTs] — anti-patterns that must not propagate

6. Install the persistent hook

Ask the user for enforcement strength (use AskUserQuestion):

OptionMechanism
1 Soft hook (recommended)Write @.ai-style-rules.md reference into project CLAUDE.md
2 Hard hookSoft hook + PreToolUse[Write|Edit|MultiEdit] Hook in settings.json
3 No hookKeep the rules file; user references manually

Branch B — Incremental Sniff

  1. Read existing .ai-style-rules.md; if it has a commit fingerprint, git diff <last_hash> HEAD --stat to pinpoint delta
  2. Read recent Git changes (git log -3 --stat → inspect suspect files on demand)
  3. For oversized diffs (>hundreds of files): --stat summary only + sample the largest changes
  4. Compare new code against recorded rules → conflicts go through Grilling Protocol
  5. Append evolution log at the end of .ai-style-rules.md (never overwrite old rules)

Per-Turn Enforcement

When .ai-style-rules.md is in context (loaded via CLAUDE.md), every code-writing task must open with a compliance declaration in the reasoning chain, naming the exemplar being followed and the DONTs being avoided.

How It Works

This skill auto-detects whether it's a first-time or incremental run via .ai-style-rules.md presence:

  • First-time (Branch A) — Measures project scale, scans codebase across 4 meta-architecture dimensions (File Anatomy, State & Control Flow, Infrastructure, Error Handling), applies signal-threshold noise reduction to suppress weak conflicts, resolves strong-signal conflicts one-at-a-time with the user, generates .ai-style-rules.md with Golden Files / Naming Rules / DONTs, and offers optional enforcement hooks.
  • Incremental (Branch B) — Reads existing rules, checks recent Git diffs for new or conflicting patterns, runs the same one-at-a-time grilling protocol for any conflicts found, and appends evolution logs without overwriting existing rules.
  • Per-Turn Enforcement — When hooked via CLAUDE.md, every code-writing task opens with a compliance declaration naming the exemplar followed and the DONTs avoided.

Output Specification

  • .ai-style-rules.md at project root (with commit fingerprint + scale tier in header)
  • Optionally CLAUDE.md with @.ai-style-rules.md reference
  • Evolution logs appended as ### [YYYY-MM-DD] Style Evolution Log entries

Anti-Patterns

  • FAIL: Do NOT skip the scale measurement step — sampling a 30-file project "starves" it; full-scanning a 5,000-file repo blows up
  • FAIL: Do NOT stack multiple conflict questions at once — grilling is strictly one-at-a-time
  • FAIL: Do NOT overwrite old rules in incremental mode — always append evolution logs
  • FAIL: Do NOT default to "hard hook" without asking — enforcement strength is the user's call
  • FAIL: Do NOT judge syntax or tech-stack quality — this skill aligns meta-architecture only
  • FAIL: Do NOT copy bugs from exemplar files — reuse structure, flag defects

Best Practices

  • Announce the detected mode (first-time vs incremental) and scale tier in one line before scanning
  • For large projects, read --stat summaries first, then targeted Read on suspect files
  • Let the signal threshold handle noise — a 843-vs-8 naming split should auto-resolve without user interruption
  • When in doubt about signal strength, lean toward asking
  • The CLAUDE.md soft hook (@.ai-style-rules.md) is usually sufficient; hard hook only if the user wants mechanical enforcement

Related Skills

  • init — initialize a new CLAUDE.md with codebase documentation
  • code-review — review diffs for correctness and style issues
  • simplify — review code for reuse and simplification opportunities

Examples

  1. First-time onboarding

    • User: "Help me onboard AI to this older codebase without changing its style."
    • Action: Run Branch A full-scan → measure scale → scan 4 dimensions → grill conflicts → generate .ai-style-rules.md → offer hook strength (soft/hard/none).
  2. Incremental update after team changes

    • User: "We added a new module; keep existing style rules intact."
    • Action: Run Branch B incremental sniff → compare Git deltas to recorded rules → grill any new conflicts → append evolution log without overwriting.
  3. Enforcing DONTs via CLAUDE.md

    • User: "Make sure all new code stays consistent with the project's rules."
    • Action: Soft hook installed → .ai-style-rules.md auto-loaded every session → every code-writing task opens with compliance declaration, reusing exemplar patterns and avoiding DONTs.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC287.3KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC287.3KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummary

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC287.3KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC287.3KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC287.3KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC287.3KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill