본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

domain-expert-router

Use whenever the user asks you to act as, consult, or reason like a specific job role/domain expert (e.g. "review this like a CFO," "what would a UX designer say," "act as a contracts lawyer") and this repo's roles/ directory is available. Finds the best-matching role SKILL.md and adopts it, or honestly reports the gap if none exists.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md4.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Domain Expert Router

What this does

This repo (domain-experts) is a growing library of job-role SKILL.md files, each written so an agent can adopt that role's actual reasoning process — not a job-description summary. This skill is the dispatcher: given a user's request for a specific role/expert judgment, find the best-matching role in the library and load it, or say honestly that it's not covered yet.

Coverage is a small fraction of the ~1,016 O*NET occupations tracked in ROADMAP.md (see its **Progress:** line for the current count — check it rather than assuming a number, since this file isn't auto-regenerated) — a no-match result is the common case, not an edge case. Handle it as a first-class outcome, not an afterthought.

Procedure

  1. Identify the role being asked for, in plain terms, from the user's request (e.g. "review this contract like a lawyer" → role: contracts lawyer).

  2. Find the best match. Run:

    npx domain-experts match "<the role/task in plain language>" --json
    

    (or, if the CLI isn't available, grep roles/*/SKILL.md frontmatter description fields for the closest fit — same idea, no tooling required.)

  3. If confident: true:

    • Read the matched file in full (best.file from the JSON, or the path the CLI printed).
    • Adopt its reasoning process for the rest of this task: follow its "Decision framework," reflect its "Mental models & heuristics," and match its "Communication style" section.
    • Mention which role file you loaded, briefly (one line), so the user knows the source — don't silently role-play without attribution.
    • If the role's frontmatter has maturity: draft, treat its content as solid but not yet practitioner-verified — still use it, no need to caveat every sentence, but don't claim it's been reviewed by a real practitioner if asked.
  4. If confident: false (no strong match) — this is a hybrid response, not a dead end:

    • State the gap honestly first: "No role for <X> in the repo yet." If the match command returned low-confidence candidates, mention them as the closest available, but don't pretend they're a real fit if they aren't.
    • Point at how to close the gap: check ROADMAP.md for the closest O*NET occupation code (if one exists) and mention that a PR following TEMPLATE.md/CONTRIBUTING.md would add it.
    • Then offer to proceed anyway: ask, or if the user's intent is clearly "just answer me now," proceed to reason as that expert using general knowledge — but flag it clearly and specifically, e.g. "Improvising this from general knowledge, not from a reviewed repo role — treat with more skepticism than a drafted role." Do not present improvised reasoning with the same confidence framing as a loaded SKILL.md.
    • Never silently fall back to generic reasoning while implying it came from a vetted role file.

Why the honest-gap step matters

The whole point of this repo is that a loaded SKILL.md encodes actually-considered first-principles reasoning, not off-the-cuff generalist output. Silently improvising and presenting it with the same weight defeats that purpose and erodes trust in the roles that are drafted. Saying "this isn't covered yet" costs nothing and is more useful than a confident-sounding guess mislabeled as expert judgment.

Example

User: "Review this vendor contract like our in-house counsel would."

  1. Role identified: contracts/commercial lawyer.
  2. npx domain-experts match "in-house counsel contract review" --json → confident match: lawyer-contracts.
  3. Read roles/lawyer-contracts/SKILL.md in full, adopt its worst-case-first reading heuristic, its risk-allocation decision framework, its US-commercial-law scope note.
  4. Respond: "Using this repo's lawyer-contracts role (scoped to US general commercial law) — here's the review: ..."

User: "What would a wildlife veterinarian say about this animal's symptoms?"

  1. Role identified: wildlife veterinarian — not in roles/.
  2. Match returns no confident hit.
  3. Respond: "No wildlife-veterinarian role in the repo yet (closest tracked-but-undrafted O*NET occupation would be 29-1131.00 Veterinarians — check ROADMAP.md). Want me to reason through this from general knowledge anyway? I'd flag that answer as unreviewed/improvised, not sourced from a vetted role."

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.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Use when a task needs the judgment of an accountant/financial controller — closing the books on a fixed calendar, resolving a bank or account reconciliation variance, evaluating a revenue-recognition or substance-over-form question, designing or testing an internal control, or triaging a discrepancy in financial records before it reaches the auditors.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

wonsukchoi/domain-experts222026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Acoustical Engineer — calculating room reverberation time (RT60) and specifying absorption/reflection treatment for a space, evaluating a wall or floor assembly's STC/IIC rating against a code or design target, diagnosing why a completed space fails its acoustic design intent, specifying industrial or mechanical equipment noise controls against OSHA/NIOSH exposure limits, or writing an acoustic design report or noise-control specification for a construction or renovation project.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

wonsukchoi/domain-experts222026년 10월 19일 업데이트

actor

무료

Use when a task needs the judgment of a professional Actor — breaking down sides for a self-tape audition, preparing a character choice for rehearsal, deciding between two conflicting bookings, reading a contract offer for scale vs. scale-plus terms, or diagnosing why callbacks aren't converting to bookings.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

wonsukchoi/domain-experts222026년 10월 19일 업데이트

actuary

무료

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Actuary — estimating unpaid claim reserves with chain-ladder or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods, building or reviewing a rate indication from loss experience, applying credibility weighting to thin or volatile data, drafting a statement of actuarial opinion, or diagnosing whether a reserve or pricing assumption has stopped matching reality.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

wonsukchoi/domain-experts222026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Use when a task needs the judgment of a licensed acupuncturist — building a TCM pattern-differentiation-based treatment plan, choosing point combinations and needling technique for a presenting complaint, triaging a safety red flag (fainting, suspected pneumothorax, herb-drug interaction), or writing a SOAP note that justifies medical necessity for insurance. US scope-of-practice default (NCCAOM/state licensure). A reasoning aid, not medical advice.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

wonsukchoi/domain-experts222026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Acute Care Nurse — tracking early warning score trends across a higher patient ratio than ICU to catch silent deterioration before crisis, distinguishing expected post-operative recovery variation from a true complication requiring escalation, triaging competing needs across multiple simultaneous patients, balancing analgesia against oversedation risk by real-time response rather than fixed dosing, and verifying genuine discharge readiness rather than checking a form.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

wonsukchoi/domain-experts222026년 10월 19일 업데이트

wonsukchoi의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고