lc-curate-context

name	lc-curate-context
description	Create optimized llm-context rules for specific tasks by analyzing codebase content and generating minimal file selection patterns Use when this capability is needed.
metadata	{"author":"cyberchitta"}

Context Descriptor Creation

Create rules that define the minimal sufficient context for a task.

The job is not to gather a lot of relevant code. The job is to produce the smallest full-file and excerpted-file set that is still enough to complete the task.

Use This Workflow

1. Understand the task in concrete file terms.
2. Start from the narrowest sensible filter baseline.
3. Put files to edit in full-files.
4. Put callers, dependencies, and large reference files in excerpted-files.
5. Run lc-preview.
6. Read the exact Full files and Excerpted files lists.
7. Tighten until the selection is minimal and sufficient.

Pick the Baseline First

Start narrow unless you have a good reason not to.

Use lc/flt-no-files when:

• the task is surgical
• you already know the likely files
• you want exact control over membership

Use flt-repo-base or lc/flt-base when:

• you need a broad project slice
• the task spans a subsystem
• the project already has a disciplined repo-level filter

If lc-preview shows many unexpected full files, your baseline is too broad.

Full vs Excerpted

Full files

• files you expect to edit
• small configs or templates that directly control the behavior
• compact integration points where exact code matters

Excerpted files

• callers and dependencies
• large modules where structure is enough
• reference implementations and surrounding architecture

Move a file from excerpted to full only when the exact body matters.

Verify with lc-preview

lc-preview is the main verification step.

Read it in this order:

1. Summary
2. Full files
3. Excerpted files

Ask:

• Are all expected edit targets in Full files?
• Did any unrelated files leak into Full files?
• Are context files in Excerpted files instead of Full files?
• Is the total selection small enough for the task?

Do not trust a rule until the exact file lists look right.

Grounded Example 1: Improve lc-preview

Task: change preview formatting so it lists all selected full and excerpted files.

This is a narrow task. Start from lc/flt-no-files.

---
description: Improve lc-preview verification output
compose:
  filters: [lc/flt-no-files]
  excerpters: [lc/exc-base]
also-include:
  full-files:
    - "/src/llm_context/context_preview.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/cli.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/commands.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/lc_resources/templates/lc/preview.j2"
  excerpted-files:
    - "/src/llm_context/context_generator.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/context_spec.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/file_selector.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/rule.py"
---
Make lc-preview show exact full and excerpted file membership for rule verification.

Why this shape:

• full: the command path and template being edited
• excerpted: supporting selection and rendering code for orientation
• narrow baseline: prevents accidental inclusion of most of the repo

What to look for in lc-preview:

• only those four edit targets in Full files
• supporting internals in Excerpted files
• no tests, docs, or unrelated resources unless intentionally added

Grounded Example 2: Tighten Primitive Rules and Skill Guidance

Task: improve primitive rule composition and the skill docs that teach it.

This task is broader, but still needs discipline. Start from a repo filter only if it already excludes enough noise.

---
description: Improve primitive rules and skill guidance
compose:
  filters: [flt-repo-base, flt-no-excerpters]
  excerpters: [lc/exc-base]
also-include:
  full-files:
    - "/src/llm_context/lc_resources/skills/lc-curate-context/*.md"
    - "/src/llm_context/lc_resources/rules/lc/*.md"
    - "/.llm-context/rules/*.md"
    - "/src/llm_context/rule.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/rule_parser.py"
  excerpted-files:
    - "/src/llm_context/context_spec.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/file_selector.py"
    - "/src/llm_context/commands.py"
---
Improve the primitive rule vocabulary and the skill instructions that teach agents how to compose and verify task rules.

What to look for in lc-preview:

• all rule and skill docs appear in Full files
• supporting mechanics stay excerpted unless they are being changed
• repo-level defaults do not drag in unrelated source files

If preview expands too far, drop the repo baseline and switch to lc/flt-no-files.

CLI and MCP Equivalents

Step	CLI	MCP
Explore	lc-outlines	lc_outlines
Validate	lc-preview <rule>	lc_preview
Get context	lc-context <rule>	lc_outlines + lc_missing
Check drift	lc-changed	lc_changed
Fetch exact files	lc-missing -f '[paths]' -t <ts>	lc_missing

Path Rules

In rule patterns, paths start with /, relative to project root.

- "/src/llm_context/rule.py"
- "/tests/test_outliner.py"

Preview and generated context show namespaced paths like /{project-name}/src/....

File Naming

• tmp-prm-<name>.md: temporary task rule
• prm-<name>.md: reusable prompt rule
• flt-<name>.md: reusable filter primitive

Feedback

This skill is young — actively log friction whenever something is awkward, surprising, ambiguous, missing, or led you down the wrong path. Don't filter; patterns only emerge from honest individual observations.

Where to log (try in order):

1. If the user has a local llm-context.py checkout (sibling repo, editable install, or anywhere else on disk) — append to <llm-context.py-repo>/field-notes.md. That's the lowest-friction path to the maintainer, since the entry lands directly in the upstream working tree.
   • Probe common locations before asking: ../llm-context.py, ~/GitHub/llm-context.py, ~/src/llm-context.py. If the user has mentioned the checkout elsewhere in the conversation, use that path.
   • If field-notes.md doesn't exist yet, create it with the header below.
2. Otherwise — append to .llm-context/SKILL-FEEDBACK.md in the current project (created on first entry, git-ignored by default). The user can copy entries upstream later.
3. For items that clearly generalize beyond this project — also paste the entry as an issue at https://github.com/cyberchitta/llm-context.py/issues so the maintainer can triage it.

Entry format (newest at the top):

• Date — YYYY-MM-DD, absolute (resolve "today"/"Tuesday" before writing).
• Task — one line describing what the user was trying to accomplish.
• Observation — 1–3 sentences: what surfaced, what worked around it (if anything), and whether it reads as a one-off or hints at a pattern.
• Suggested home — one of Skill.md / PATTERNS.md / SYNTAX.md / EXAMPLES.md / TROUBLESHOOTING.md / upstream code / still-unsure. still-unsure is a valid answer.

First-time header to drop at the top of a new feedback file (either <llm-context.py-repo>/field-notes.md or .llm-context/SKILL-FEEDBACK.md):

# llm-context skill feedback (uncommitted)

Informal log of friction with the `lc-curate-context` skill — anything
awkward, buggy, missing, or surprising. Newest at the top.

Log first; decide later whether the observation generalizes.

References

• PATTERNS.md for reusable shapes
• EXAMPLES.md for worked examples
• SYNTAX.md for rule syntax
• TROUBLESHOOTING.md for failure cases

---

Source: cyberchitta/llm-context.py — distributed by TomeVault.