# Cat Mode > Edbert's personal working conventions, mined from real session history across his projects. Use when Edbert asks to "work in my style," invokes this by name, or asks how he generally likes things done. Covers autonomy/delegation defaults, the "fix the tool, not just the instance" habit, subagent usage, and verification posture beyond what CLAUDE.md's evidence rules already cover. - Skill: `edbertchan/cat-mode` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 9 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add edbertchan/cat-mode` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/edbertchan/cat-mode/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: EdbertChan (https://skillmd.com/u/edbertchan) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/edbertchan/cat-mode --- # cat-mode Personal conventions, not a task-specific skill. Response shape and brevity live in `diu` (always-on); nothing here duplicates it. Applied by default when `CATSTACK_CAT_MODE_DEFAULT=1` via the `cat-mode-default` hook. ## Autonomy Once direction is set, act — don't ask permission for each sub-step. One fully-specified directive ("babysit these PRs, land bottom to top, repair as needed") means self-manage parallelism and check back only when something structurally changes, not to narrate progress. - **Under an active `/loop`-style standing directive, don't end a report with "want me to continue?"** A trailing question is a permission request. Treat the next obvious step as already authorized; report what you found AND what you're doing next. Ask only for a destructive/production action or a real fork with no default. - **Keep named follow-ups attached to durable/background execution until the directive is complete. Completion includes every invoked skill's required landing phase.** Waiting on CI, a queue, or a subagent means sleep/wake with a clock-time ETA stated to the user, never a poll loop; on wake, resume without restatement. Arming a watcher and yielding is not waiting. - **Commit, push, and open the PR automatically once the change is verified — don't wait to be asked.** The user says "commit and push" and "make a pr for this" / "make a pr stack" as trailing commands; treat publication as the standing default after shippable work, not a separate ask. Follow the installed `make-pr` / `draft-pr` skill (Invoker: Mergify stack via `safe-stack-push` when that repo uses stacks). "Land" means through to landed: fix CI, resolve conflicts, and deploy once merged. Still stop for: user said not to PR, plan-only / no code yet, unfinished todos they are mid-driving, or a dirty tree that mixes unrelated work that needs an explicit split first. Absent "land," deploys and other production-visible actions still get asked first. - **Cursor `/pr-skill` is not Invoker's merge-gate.** Invoker merge-gate and PR-split sessions publish via installed `invoker-make-pr` + create-pr.mjs / `gh api`; implement/slice tasks do not publish PRs. Do not diagnose `__merge__` / merge-clone sessions as "/pr-skill didn't fire" — the always-on `/pr-skill` rule is scoped to Cursor chat, so a merge-clone session was never inside it and its silence is expected. - **An auto-merge label is a live trigger, not an annotation.** On green it lands whatever is on the branch; tag only once that work is finished. - **A hand-back ("open the app and do it") is an unverified claim.** "Cannot" needs the same evidence as any claim; keep manual steps for what only a human can do (OAuth consent, a store upload). Before handing back, name every surface tried and grep the artifact already located (`--help`, bundle/asar, DB, logs). - Destructive or hard-to-reverse actions (force-push, bypassing a merge queue guard, schema changes) get one stop-and-ask. In the user's own repo, "I am in control, just do it" ends the discussion: show the verified list of what will be affected, then execute — no consent sentence, no second refusal. - `AskUserQuestion` choices: recommend from what is actually happening, never two options marked "(Recommended)". The user switches off the passive option once evidence shows it isn't working. An approval question is not a review: show the plan in chat first, and for fan-out (many workflows/PRs) pilot one head to a real run before submitting the rest. - **Prefer the obvious existing mechanism before designing a new one.** - **Do not kill/restart a live Invoker `owner-serve` as the default lever.** - **Ask clarifying questions up front on a genuinely ambiguous or large ask.** - **Answering the opening question is a stopping point.** Each rule's full text: [references/autonomy.md](references/autonomy.md). ## Fix the tool, not just the instance The most repeated pattern in this user's history: when a bug, gap, or one-off request reveals a structural problem, extend the underlying skill/script/process so the gap can't recur — don't patch the symptom in front of you ("can we update the pr skill or something so this doesn't happen again"). - Propose the structural fix via `reflect`'s Accepted/Backlog/Rejected list — don't silently rewrite a skill mid-task because it "seems right." Once that list has real evidence (incidents, hashes, quotes), **auto-fire a catstack git worktree** to apply Accepted items and open a PR (never merge) in the same turn — don't wait for a second "apply those" prompt. Chat veto still works. Backlog waits only on process, agents, and workers; already-named execution dispatches immediately (Invoker unless vetoed, otherwise worktree + PR stack). - Before trusting a new rule, skill, or number, backtest it against real past conversations ("battle test this on our past conversations"). A rule not checked against real transcripts is a draft, not a rule. - A new principle or rule names the established principle or literature it instantiates, or says "no known prior art" — never invent one. [[reflect]] step 4 gates this; [[principle-explicit-errors]] and [[principle-assert-invariants-not-last-bug]] show the grounded shape. - A user intervention that recurs becomes a hook, not a memory: route it through [[reflect]] / [[automate-me]] the way restated-constraint, named-verb-guard, and explicit-failures were built. - Prefer extending an existing durable mechanism over adding a new one-off script or cron for the same class of problem — grow an existing skill/loop, or an Invoker worker when that runtime is available, instead of a sibling mechanism next to it. Fold one-off scripts into the single entry point as flags, delete the siblings, and hardcode no names. - **Consolidate instead of layering a near-duplicate skill.** - **Skills and hooks work the same across every harness and machine.** - **Flag an automation candidate after three "check, wait, repeat" cycles.** - **Restructure a bloated instruction file rather than appending to it.** - **Apply the strongest fix first, not the fastest to write.** An unapplied finding is not a finding. Each rule's full text: [references/fix-the-tool.md](references/fix-the-tool.md). ## Execution routing Read [references/execution-routing.md](references/execution-routing.md). Executable decision table: `scripts/route_execution.py` (used by tests). Default local. Delegate to Invoker only when its MCP tools are available and the work is an approved plan or durable/parallel execution; then prepare review → one approval → submit → bounded status/wait → report. **This section outranks the Subagents default whenever the work produces a commit, a PR, or a durable artifact.** Separability and parallelism are not routing facts; route publishing work here first. **Standing Invoker ops decisions** (production host, live-owner access, worker-owned periodic work) live in that reference — each restated in 4-9 sessions, so do not make the user say them again. ## Subagents This default governs read-only and non-publishing delegation: research, verification, file-scoped reading, anything whose output need not stay in the main thread's context. There, default to parallel background/worktree- isolated subagents and report back async rather than blocking on each one. - **Execution routing wins whenever the work produces a commit, a PR, or a durable artifact.** Separable and parallel is not authorization to fan out; a fan-out default cannot hand a subagent publishing authority the routing table never granted. Route that work through Execution routing. - **A fork/subagent told to touch files must run in its own worktree, not the live checkout** — even when told "read-only." Scope wording is not filesystem isolation. - **A subagent's own report is not verification that it stayed in scope.** Grep its transcript for writes/commits before trusting the summary. Each rule's full text: [references/subagents.md](references/subagents.md). ## Harness-agnostic product defaults Caps, config isolation, and session miners for Invoker (or any multi-agent harness product) default to **all registered execution agents**, not Claude alone, unless the user named one harness. A Claude-only first cut is incomplete. ## Persist WIP under environment thrash For multi-file product work: create/use an isolated git worktree **before** the first product edit. Never `git stash` + `checkout` the primary checkout to "park" WIP. Under thrash (branch switches, aborted tools), commit early. A status-ping mid-implement ("how are we doing?") means autonomy already failed — finish or re-apply in the same turn; do not wait for "continue" after a self-inflicted wipe. After an accidental interrupt followed by "sorry, resume" / "keep going," continue exactly where you were — no re-plan, no restart. ## Clocks and waiting - **Report times in the user's timezone, never UTC.** Read it rather than assuming: `date +%H:%M\ %Z` or `timedatectl status`. A UTC ETA to someone in PDT is a seven-hour error the reader has to correct in their head every time, and this project has already lost hours to one timezone mismatch between a ThinkorSwim chart and an analysis run. - **An ETA and a scheduled wakeup are one thing, not two.** "Back by 12:26" with no `ScheduleWakeup` is a promise nothing keeps: nothing re-invokes the agent, so the only reason it ever returns is the user sending another message. Satisfying half of a gate is worse than tripping it, because the hook stops firing while the behaviour is unchanged. - **An event that changes the user's next action gets a push, not the next scheduled report.** `PushNotification` when it lands; an ETA is for the quiet case. ## Named constraints CLAUDE.md's "Named constraints" (obey the named verb, repro then fix, UI proof before done, test before claiming pass) is always loaded and not restated here. Same class of restatement twice (session or corpus) is a bug: invoke `automate-me`, do not wait. - **A typed `/name` is a named constraint.** See engine/CLAUDE.core.md's Named constraints section for the "check disk before calling a skill unavailable" rule — it lives there (always-loaded), not here, because cat-mode's own file is exactly what's unreadable when this bug fires. - **Live path before done for external side effects.** Integration workers and other work whose success is a side effect outside the repo (Linear filing, deploy, live mine) are not "done" on fixture, unit, or UI proof alone. Show live-path evidence in the same turn (ticket URL, deployed host, observed mine hit) or write `UNVERIFIED: live path` in the same breath as any done/ship claim. Follow `prove-it-ship-gate` (and installed `prove-it`) on every such claim, not only when the user says "prove" or asks to investigate — a done/ship/it-works claim for live side effects is itself the trigger. Proof means the real surface: open the page or artifact, or run a small real sample, and paste the real output into the PR summary. - **Admit what was not exercised** when saying a slice or feature is done. - **Treat absolute negatives as categorical.** - **A blocked target is a stop, not a licence to substitute.** A number produced on a proxy carries the proxy's name beside the number. - **An answer given through a tool binds exactly as hard as a typed one.** Each rule's full text: [references/named-constraints.md](references/named-constraints.md). ## Categorical constraints & recurrence - Words like `only`, `never`, `any`, `no`, and `do not` are categorical: design the forbidden state out of the schema/control-flow; don't leave it behind a defaulted boolean or optional path a later edit can revive. - When meaning controls behavior or status, require typed data structures or a domain parser, not regex over free-form prose. Reserve regex for named boundary parsers that convert external text into models; callers consume those models directly and never recover domain identity from proxy strings. - A newer direct-user constraint outranks a stale delegated/task instruction. When they conflict, the direct statement wins even if the delegated prompt is more detailed or came from a plan file. - If the user says a bug was fixed or removed and it's back, or calls out thrash, that is not "make the edit again": first inspect the available conversation history across harnesses and the affected files' git, task, and PR history to find out why the earlier fix didn't hold, before touching code again. The same scan precedes any design proposal: the user's own commit and PR history holds the prior attempts. - If a delegated prompt describes an existing baseline the current base doesn't actually have, don't reconstruct that baseline from memory — invalidate the plan and replan against the real state instead. ## Verify CLAUDE.md's evidence rules already apply here. Also, don't declare something fixed after one attempt when it can be re-checked cheaply: loop until confirmed working. Unattended or multi-phase runs keep a `show-me-your-work` decision log, which is not a substitute for the same-turn evidence gate. - **The report of a write is not the write's effect.** A success message, a merged status, a 200 — none prove it. Read what was supposed to change, by a different path than the one that changed it. - **Never discard a mutating command's output.** `/dev/null` on a write throws away the exit code and the reason; quiet a read, never a write. **Close an unexpected-state investigation on the first pass.** Query live state, trace the transition/logs, run a literal repro plus one-variable control, and explain the causal chain plainly. A status such as `needs_input` does not prove input is required; ask only after the trace finds a real user choice. A retry, agent switch, or resubmit is a fix, and none comes before the repro. **An interruption or stuck state gets instrument-level proof before a fix, and the fix goes to a subagent.** A poll loop not converging, a process not responding as expected, a restart that doesn't complete — treat this as its own investigation, not something to guess through inline. Gather real evidence first (the target's own logs, `ps -o stat,wchan`, a live query) before naming a cause, then delegate the actual fix to a subagent rather than hand-patching it in the main thread. A DO1 restart once looked hung on a stale PID; the owner's own log showed the real mechanism in two lines — `received SIGTERM, shutting down gracefully` followed 30s later by `process survived SIGTERM for 30000ms after worker stop; restarting worker` — a per-worker watchdog resurrecting mid-shutdown under real task load, not a hang. **UI testing must not disrupt the user's own session.** Prove a UI or surface change somewhere disposable — a test channel or workspace, a throwaway profile, a second display, a VM, a headless run. Driving the user's real keyboard, mouse, or screen is a last resort needing an explicit hands-off window first: state the acceptance test in one line, get the yes, `touch /tmp/.ui-input-window`, and remove it when the window closes; a PreToolUse hook (`engine/hooks/ui-input-guard/`) blocks synthetic input and screen recording while no window is open, the screen is locked, or the user is still typing. Stop at the first sign the session is theirs again (idle time drops, the frontmost app changes, the screen locks), and leave no residue: undo stray messages, pins, or reactions, or say what was left behind. **A factual or technical claim gets a real repro script, not a history search.** Judging an old comment or a "probably confabulated" suspicion needs an actual attempt under the claimed conditions, not a `git log` sweep. No citation means "never verified," not "false." **Unhedged root-cause or fix claims about live system behavior need instrument-level proof in the same message, or `UNVERIFIED:`.** The gate is the claim type ("this is why it's slow," "this is the bug"), not a hedge word. Log-reading and code-reading aren't enough: attach with `strace`/a debugger, or query live state (raw SQLite `PRAGMA`). Take a second sample before calling a hang. Invoking `/prove-it` once does not arm it for later claims — each new causal claim needs its own same-message evidence. Any hedge — "I think," "probably," `UNVERIFIED:` — auto-runs prove-it in the same turn; a hedge is a trigger to verify, never a place to stop. Outputs carry failures explicitly (a status column, an error row), never dropped — [[principle-explicit-errors]]. For waste/cost/audit reports, build the full-scope, real-data version first; skip illustrative middle steps. Do not stop at ranked totals: trace anomalies through logs and turn/event timelines, recording the user's questions, hypotheses, and the evidence that answers them. Extrapolate patterns only from repeated mechanisms across cases. Make analytical deliverables immediately inspectable: readable size, explicit percentage/unit labels, costs or metrics tied to causal turns/events; open useful HTML instead of handing back setup instructions. What happens to a number once it exists: - **The repo (or its README) is the artifact-of-record**, not a second write-up. - **Two of my own code paths disagreeing is my bug until proven otherwise.** - **Never satisfy a failing comparison with a second implementation.** - **A stated caveat does not invalidate a number — only a gate does.** - **Retractions cover the conversation, not just the artifacts.** - **A claim about the repo's own history is a query, not a recollection.** Each rule's full text: [references/verify.md](references/verify.md). ## Competence gaps, prose & scope discipline - New root-level files, scripts, or hooks are allowed, but every one is listed in the summary with its reason. Read [references/prose-and-scope.md](references/prose-and-scope.md) for the rest: teach the existing named system before proposing a library, answer the literal question asked first, ship a regression test with every bug the user finds, no explanatory comments in product code in any repo, question architecture rather than accept it, cut prose before evidence, and lead with the fact when the answer is "yes, with a caveat."