Complete architecture reference for the A3 insurance platform — file locations, data flow, conventions, microservice map, and fullstack patterns
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills792026년 7월 12일 업데이트
무료GitHub에 공개
gate
Verification before completion claims. Use when about to say "done", "fixed", or "complete". Runs checklist by workflow type with evidence requirements.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
설치 방법 보기포함된 파일(2)
- SKILL.md4.4 KB
- metadata.json688 B
SKILL.md(원문)
설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
gate
Verify before claiming completion.
Trigger
Before claiming: "done", "fixed", "complete", "working", "ready"
Pre-Work Gate (Before Starting)
Run before substantial work begins. Blocks execution if missing.
□ Verification method locked (not "assumption")
→ What type: execution output / observation / measurement?
→ What evidence will you show?
□ At least 2 "must NOT" criteria exist
→ What should this NOT do?
→ What scope should NOT expand?
□ Fit score determined workflow shape
→ <25: BLOCKED - clarify first
→ 25-29: Colleague-shaped (iterate each step)
→ 30-39: Tool-with-review (checkpoint major steps)
→ 40+: Tool-shaped (milestones only)
If any missing: STOP. Complete before proceeding.
Post-Work Gate (Before Claiming Done)
Workflow A: Build
□ Feature executes without errors (show output)
□ Edge cases tested (empty, null, boundary)
□ Rollback tested if Type 2B/1
□ Dependencies verified
Workflow B: Debug
□ Root cause identified with evidence
□ Fix tested and resolves symptom
□ Prevention added (test/automation/guard)
□ Related bugs checked (same class)
Workflow C: Refactor
□ Existing tests pass unchanged
□ Behavior identical (output comparison)
□ Deletion complete (no orphans)
□ No new abstraction without justification
Verification Types
| Type | Description | Sufficient for SHIP? |
|---|---|---|
execution output | Ran command, showed result | ✓ Yes |
observation | Screenshot, debugger session | ✓ Yes |
measurement | Metrics, benchmark data | ✓ Yes |
reasoned inference | Logic-based conclusion | ⚠️ Flag, don't block |
code review | Inspection only | ⚠️ Weak |
assumption | Not verified | ⚠️ Flag with warning |
Default: Require execution output, observation, or measurement before completion claims.
Boundary
Gates advise, never prevent. User owns their work.
- If user says "I'm confident" → flag concern, proceed
- If user says "skip gates" → proceed without verification demands
- Never invalidate user's assessment of their own work
Gate exists to surface risk, not to block legitimate intuition.
Verification Plan
Before claiming completion, define how you'll verify:
| Verification Type | Evidence Required | Time Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Execution output | Command output, test results | < 1 min |
| Observation | Screenshot, debugger inspection | 1-5 min |
| Measurement | Metrics, benchmarks, profiling | 5-15 min |
| Code review | Manual inspection only | Variable |
| Assumption | No verification | 0 (blocks SHIP) |
Verification Requirements by Stakes
| Stakes | Minimum Verification |
|---|---|
| High | Execution output + Observation |
| Medium | Execution output |
| Low | Code review acceptable |
Anti-Footgun Rules
- Never claim "done" with only assumptions
- "It compiles" is not verification
- "Tests pass" requires showing test output
- If verification would take > 15 min, that's a smell (task too big)
Anti-Patterns
| Claim | Problem | Required |
|---|---|---|
| "Should work" | Speculation | Actual output |
| "Looks good" | No verification | Test results |
| "Fixed the issue" | No proof | Before/after |
| "I think this resolves it" | No confidence % | X-Y% + basis |
Incomplete Work
When blocked, state:
- What's done (with evidence)
- What's blocking (specific)
- What's remaining
Type 2A Exception
Trivial changes (< 1 min rollback): completion allowed without full gate. Document undo command.
Common Rationalizations (All Wrong)
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The tests passed" | Tests ≠ verification. Did you run the ACTUAL command? |
| "It should work" | "Should" = assumption. Show evidence. |
| "I already checked" | When? Show the output. |
| "The user is waiting" | Rushed verification = rework later. |
| "It's a simple change" | Simple changes break production too. |
| "I'm pretty sure it works" | Pretty sure ≠ evidence. Run it. |
리뷰
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
댓글
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
같은 저장소의 스킬
Drafts U.S. commercial real estate access and indemnity (right-of-entry) agreements for pre-closing due diligence. Covers license grants, non-invasive vs invasive testing gates, insurance/endorsement requirements, indemnity with discovery carve-outs, restoration and lien remedies, confidentiality, and anti-indemnity guardrails. Trigger: access agreement, right of entry, due diligence access, Phase I/II, invasive testing, pre-PSA site inspection.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills792026년 7월 12일 업데이트
当用户需要对意外险投保问卷进行专业、结构化的核保审查，提取职业类别、工作环境、作业内容、危险活动参与情况、交通出行习惯、特殊工作暴露及其他可能影响意外险承保判断的高风险信息，并生成适合意外险核保、补问流转和风险分层处理的结构化分析结果时使用本 skill。
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills792026년 7월 12일 업데이트
Inspect, schema, and fill true AcroForm PDFs using sciClaw's pdf_form_inspect, pdf_form_schema, and pdf_form_fill tools. Use when: (1) checking whether a PDF is a real fillable AcroForm, (2) listing form field names, types, and choices, (3) filling a supported form from structured values, (4) preparing reviewable insurance, legal, administrative, or clinical form drafts, (5) reporting skipped fields or unused input keys after a fill. Do not use for scanned PDFs, OCR tasks, or XFA-only forms.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills792026년 7월 12일 업데이트
Guide actuarial analysis for insurance pricing. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with actuarial-analysis related tasks.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills792026년 7월 12일 업데이트
Analyzes actuarial modeling systems for loss reserving accuracy, premium pricing methodology, mortality/morbidity tables, stochastic modeling, and capital adequacy per SOA and Solvency II standards. USE THIS SKILL WHEN: - You need to review or audit actuarial models (reserving, pricing, capital) - Someone asks about loss triangle analysis or reserve adequacy - You are evaluating IBNR calculations, chain ladder methods, or Bornhuetter-Ferguson - A project involves insurance pricing, GLM rating models, or ratemaking - You need to assess Solvency II SCR calculations or RBC compliance - Someone mentions actuarial opinions, ASOP compliance, or SOA standards - You are reviewing stochastic models, ESG configurations, or DFA frameworks - A codebase uses actuarial libraries (chainladder, lifetables, ChainLadder R package) TRIGGER PHRASES: "actuarial", "loss reserving", "IBNR", "chain ladder", "premium pricing", "mortality table", "Solvency II", "capital adequacy", "ratemaking", "GLM pricing", "risk-based capital", "reserve analysis", "actuarial opinion"
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills792026년 7월 12일 업데이트