lilmgenius/paperthin

aim

When data lands with a thin ask — files, a repo, a paste, a chat scrollback — read it and propose what the user is trying to do with it, as a proposal to confirm rather than a question to answer.

View source

How to use

  1. Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
  2. Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
  3. Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/lilmgenius/paperthin --skill aim

Before you start

  • Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
  • Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Original skill document

Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.

Read the data and propose the intent behind it, for the user to confirm.

Goal

The result is a proposal the user only confirms, revises, or rejects — never a question. Asking makes the user compose a sentence they did not have ready; proposing lets them answer with a yes. If the turn ends with them writing that sentence anyway, the skill missed.

Workflow

  1. Read every piece of the handed-over data end to end before proposing anything.
  2. State the intent you read, in one line grounded in what the data actually shows.
  3. State briefly what you would do next on that intent.
  4. Ask only to confirm — right, wrong, or adjust.

Rules

  • Read before proposing. A proposal without reading is a guess.
  • Ground it in the data. Point at what you read, not what you assumed.
  • One intent per turn. If two are plausible, propose the likelier and name the other in a clause.
  • Confirm, don't compose. If the turn ends with the user assembling a sentence, redo the proposal.
  • If the data is too thin to propose from, say so and stop. Do not fall back to asking.

Verification

The user's next reply is short — a yes, a correction, or a small adjustment. If they had to explain what they wanted from scratch, the proposal was wrong, or was really a question in disguise.

Related by task

from this repository

More skills

All skills
lilmgenius
Community

detool

Make durable artifacts portable by replacing incidental stack, vendor, model, CLI, path, quota, or harness nouns with the mechanism they mean, while keeping provenance, runbooks, and tool-subject claims concrete.

1h installs
1
GitHub stars
1.3K
Updated
Oct 20
lilmgenius
Community

feynman

Press a decision you just made until you can explain it to a skeptic in your own words, or surface the gap where you can't. The Feynman test aimed at a choice: understanding is cheapest to fake the moment after you decide, so a fresh critic presses for what you can't actually explain. Use right after picking an option, especially one an agent laid out without arguing for.

1h installs
1
GitHub stars
1.3K
Updated
Oct 20
lilmgenius
Community

hate

Attack a plan, design, or argument like you want it to fail before you commit real effort — return the single load-bearing objection and the cheapest experiment that would prove it matters, not a checklist. User-invoked on purpose: a hate-it reflex always in the agent's reach would bias it toward demolition. Weighs many failure axes but owns the synthesis to one root.

1h installs
1
GitHub stars
1.3K
Updated
Oct 20
lilmgenius
Community

macrothink

User-invoked read-only pass for checking whether the current direction is tunnel-visioned: strip the session's bait, fan out 2 to 5 same-model fresh reads, and report divergence first without treating convergence as proof.

1h installs
1
GitHub stars
1.3K
Updated
Oct 20