From file to active setting
A developer trying to use the same skill in two coding agents faces a small, stubborn question: which client reads which file? Toolport 2.2 addresses it with per-agent state and rules-file paths in its Skills view. Clients including Claude Code, Codex and Cursor appear together. I see the useful change at the point where a written instruction becomes an active setting. The developer gains a place to inspect that loading path before rewriting the instruction.[1]
For ten agents, the notes say toggles act through each agent’s own setting. Multiple Claude Code profiles also receive separate columns. Client and profile differences remain visible beneath the shared interface. I read this design as a connection between keeping a skill in a repository and managing the environment that uses it. A file’s existence and its activation in a particular profile are two steps in maintaining that configuration.[1]
Maintenance moves into view
The Needs a look tab collects broken links, duplicate names, truncated descriptions and unread rules. It can also flag skills still enabled elsewhere. That gives the person maintaining divergent copies a concrete starting point. Differences need a decision, however: Toolport also allows acceptable items to be dismissed. The useful workflow is to expose a difference and then decide whether it is intentional.[1]
The convenience of a shared view depends on connectors that read and write each client’s settings correctly. Preserving unrelated Auggie CLI settings during import and retaining a remote Tabnine server’s authentication header are small but revealing details in this release. The cleaner screen still rests on underlying configuration formats. A team already managing those files consistently may gain less from another interface; a developer juggling many profiles may have more difficulty locating the source of differences.[1]
Start with a small migration
Installations on 1.24.x are not automatically moved to 2.x; Toolport calls for manual installation and migration guidance. I would begin with one skill and two profiles. Comparing its path, activation state and native setting after a toggle offers a small experiment in what the shared view actually handles. The measurable questions are the steps needed to locate a configuration difference and the number of changes accidentally made to the wrong profile.[1]
I would assess that experiment first as configuration maintenance, without assuming an improvement in generated code. Seeing paths together may help a developer understand which component a change affects; the time saved depends on the team’s existing setup. That is the practical opening I find interesting in this release: gaining control over where an instruction is active before changing what the instruction says.[1]