About windows-protocols
windows-protocols is a local corpus navigation skill for questions about Microsoft Open Specifications Windows protocols. It guides readers from topic overviews to protocol specs, sections, and related documents, with an answer format that distinguishes findings from uncertainty.
Key features
- 01Navigate topics through overview documents
- 02Validate known protocol IDs
- 03Route ambiguous acronyms for clarification
- 04Trace linked and related specifications
- 05Ground answers in exact sections
- 06Separate confirmed facts from inference
Use cases
- 01Find specs relevant to a Windows protocol topic
- 02Look up a known protocol ID
- 03Resolve an ambiguous protocol acronym
- 04Verify behavior across base and extension specs
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
npx skills add https:/ / github.com/ awakecoding/ openspecs --skill windows-protocolsAfter installing, type/windows-protocolsin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Details
From the project READMEWindows Protocols Corpus Navigator
Overview
- The corpus is already extracted next to
SKILL.md. - Use local files only; do not use network lookup, downloads, or setup commands.
Corpus Layout
README.md— top-level index. Start with Overview Documents for topical discovery.LEGAL.md— legal and redistribution notice.<PROTOCOL-ID>/— protocol directories.<PROTOCOL-ID>/<PROTOCOL-ID>.md— primary markdown spec content.<PROTOCOL-ID>/media/— extracted figures and image assets referenced by the markdown.
When the question is broad, start from Overview Documents or protocol families such as MS-RDP*, MS-AD*, or MS-MQ*.
Reference File
- Use
SKILL.mdfor the default workflow, worked example, and answer contract. - Open
REFERENCE.mdonly for these lookup aids: Domain Clusters, Canonical Spec Structure, and Section-First Routing.
Navigation Workflow
Use this unified workflow for all queries:
- Topical questions: identify the domain, open the matching Overview document from
README.md, and follow its member-spec links.- Anti-pattern: do not rely on README keyword search alone; Overview documents provide the authoritative topic-to-protocol mapping.
- Known protocol ID: Validate against
README.mdand directory names (<PROTOCOL-ID>/), then open the spec directly.- If the protocol is missing, say so and ask for the exact protocol ID or a narrower scope.
- Ambiguous acronyms: List 2–4 likely protocols (via Overview docs) and ask the user to choose before deep analysis.
- Scan the spec TOC (
<summary>blocks and numbered entries) before deep reading. - Read sections in this order: orientation/versioning → syntax → behavior/sequencing → security/product behavior.
- Cross-check base vs. extension specs when requirements are split, following cross-reference links as needed.
- Answer with explicit protocol IDs and exact section headings; separate confirmed facts from inference.
Link-Following
- Follow Overview-document references and inline links rather than guessing paths.
- Treat Overview → spec → related spec as the intended path.
- When a spec references another spec for types, extensions, or dependencies, follow that link to the authoritative source.
- Do not stop at the first mention; keep following links until the authoritative section answers the question.
Worked Example
User question: "In SMB2, how does the server signal that it supports persistent handles?"
Path: File Access Overview → MS-SMB2 → 2.2.4 NEGOTIATE Response → 3.3.5.4 Receiving an SMB2 NEGOTIATE Request.
Answer: cite MS-SMB2, note that the server signals support by setting SMB2_GLOBAL_CAP_PERSISTENT_HANDLES (0x00000010) in the NEGOTIATE Response Capabilities field, and put version-specific caveats under uncertainty or product behavior notes.
Answer Contract
Default answer shape:
Protocols consulted: list exact IDs.Sections used: list exact section titles (and numbers when available).Findings: concise facts tied to those sections.Inference / uncertainty: explicit separation from confirmed text.
Guidance:
- Prefer section-grounded answers and include exact protocol IDs.
- For non-obvious, contested, or security-sensitive claims, include section-grounded evidence.
- For straightforward facts, concise section references are enough.
- If two specs disagree, report both and identify likely version or context scope.
- State uncertainty explicitly, and never present inferred behavior as normative requirement text.