本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

dsh-prose-standard

Use when writing, reviewing, restoring, trimming, or auditing prose in the deepseek-harness repo, including deciding where documentation or comments are required across Markdown, JSDoc, code and test comments, prompts, descriptions, diagnostics, and CLI or UI strings.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md8.9 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml241 B
  • references/examples.md9.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

DeepSeek Harness Prose Standard

Write enough to preserve the contract, then remove reasoning transcripts, repetition, and decoration. A contract is an obligation, invariant, precondition, postcondition, or compatibility promise that a caller, callee, implementer, producer, or consumer relies on. This skill owns editorial judgment and required prose coverage; use dsh-doc-standards for placement, budgets, bilingual pairs, and documentation gates, and dsh-trim-cot-leakage for hunting and fixing reasoning-transcript leakage. It is guidance, not a script.

Treat contract, boundary, shape, surface, seam, gate, and vocabulary as terms to check before use, not banned words. First ask whether the exact rule, API, field set, type, validation, timing point, component split, or failure states the fact better. Keep a term when it names the exact technical subject, including caller/callee contracts and security/process boundaries.

Comments describe non-obvious contracts or rationale that code cannot express; they do not restate what code already implies.

Inputs and exclusions

Require an explicit scope. If it is missing, report the required input and stop; do not infer a repository-wide scope or begin an interview.

Accept mode: automatic | interactive; default to automatic. Enter interactive mode only when the user explicitly requests questions or calibration.

mode controls questions, not write authority. Review and audit tasks report findings without editing; explicitly requested write, fix, or trim tasks apply clear changes.

Always exclude vendor/ from discovery, review, and edits, even when the requested scope is the whole repository. Do not follow a symlink into it. Put exclusions after inclusion globs so a later include cannot re-admit it: for example, end ripgrep commands with --glob '!vendor/**', and give Git commands an explicit :(exclude)vendor/** pathspec. If the requested scope contains only vendor/, report that no eligible files remain.

Also exclude .agents/notes/archived/ from prose review and edits. Archived Agent Notes are frozen snapshots; inspect an exact target only to understand a historical inbound citation, never to modernize its prose or outbound links.

Treat generated catalogs, snapshots, and fixtures as derivative. Edit the owning source or scenario first, then regenerate the artifact. When a generator extracts a summary from owner prose, make the extracted sentence complete for that surface. Bilingual pairs have no permanent owner: either language may be the authored side for an update. Follow the lightweight routine path, update the counterpart minimally, and re-record the pair.

Preserve the complete proposition

Before editing, identify every proposition in the passage. Preserve each relevant:

  • actor and action;
  • condition, timing, and ordering;
  • modality such as must, may, or never;
  • negative guarantee and exception;
  • ownership, side effect, failure mode, and consequence.

Remove adjectives, repetition, and narration only when every factual clause survives and the result is clearer. A smaller word count alone is not an improvement.

Keep a complete local contract at the point of use: behavior, failure, ownership, and consequence that a caller or maintainer needs there. Aggressively link to the owning document for architecture, rationale, algorithms, history, or extended examples. One explanation has one home; essential contract facts may repeat locally.

Keep non-obvious rationale when omitting it could plausibly cause misuse or an incorrect simplification. Otherwise state the consequence and link the rationale home.

Required coverage by prose location

This is not a one-way shortening pass. Add or restore prose when code, types, and structure do not communicate a required contract below. Do not add a comment when those facts are already obvious locally.

  • Public JSDoc: document caller-visible return distinctions, throws or rejections, side effects, ownership, timing, cancellation, and durability.
  • Internal comments: orient non-local structure and obviously complicated local structure, including invariants, race ordering, ownership, security boundaries, and surprising failure behavior. Delete control-flow narration and code restatement.
  • Module comments: state the module's role, dependencies, responsibilities, and non-obvious architecture choices; link architecture choices to their owning explanation.
  • Tests: explain only non-obvious test design—why a fixture, assertion, platform accommodation, real entry path, or indirect observation is necessary. Delete walkthroughs and inventories.
  • Cookbooks: include prerequisites, required actions, the real entry path, observable verification, and concise warnings.
  • READMEs: include the consumer contract: configuration, semantics, failures, limitations, extension points, and model-visible effects. Quote stable model-visible text owned by the package; link generated catalogs and cross-package owners. Keep durable gaps and maintainer traps, not ordinary cleanup inventories. Follow the package README requirements.
  • Agent Notes: retain unique rationale, mechanisms, alternatives, consequences, shipped verification evidence, and named coverage gaps. Implemented Agent Notes state shipped reality in the present tense; remove planning checklists, not evidence of what pins the decision.
  • Postmortems: retain the incident sequence, evidence, causal chain, impact, and prevention. Remove repeated persuasion or implementation detail that does not establish causality.
  • Skills and agent instructions: state behavioral guardrails and explicit scope limitations such as “guidance, not a script/checklist.” Keep the workflow concise and link its source of truth.
  • Examples and configuration comments: explain access limits, non-obvious wiring or load order, security stance, replay behavior, exceptions, and likely misuse. Do not narrate entries that the configuration already shows.
  • Prompts and visible strings: treat wording as behavior. Inspect generated output and run behavior validation or state why no snapshot applies.
  • Diagnostics: name the failing subject or path, violated rule, and correction when it is non-obvious. Remove internal execution narration.

Preserve searchable mechanism names and meaningful modal, temporal, or negative emphasis. Normalize decorative emphasis only.

Workflow

  1. Confirm the scope, mode, current branch or PR base, and applicable AGENTS.md files. Do not inspect unrelated branches.
  2. Read the documentation standard and the owning code or document before judging a passage. For calibration or unfamiliar cases, read the distilled examples.
  3. Inspect the requested scope, not only the largest files. Use searches and word counts to find candidates, then judge passages semantically.
  4. Classify each candidate as keep, add, trim, restore, restructure, or defer. Apply clear changes only when the task authorizes edits; do not manufacture edits to satisfy a deletion target.
  5. Update the owner before derivative artifacts. Re-check analogous passages after learning a new rule.
  6. Run the narrow relevant checks, documentation gates, git diff --check, and behavior tests for visible strings. Verify the final diff contains no vendor/ path and report any accidental vendor match rather than claiming a clean exclusion history.
  7. Report the inspected scope, clear changes, deliberate keeps, deferred cases, and checks actually run.

Borderline decisions

A case is borderline only when at least two versions satisfy the complete-proposition rule but trade accepted principles, and this skill does not already resolve the tradeoff. A rewrite with one proposition-preserving answer is not borderline.

In automatic mode, apply clear edits when authorized and report genuine borderline cases without asking questions. Do not weaken a proposition to make progress.

In interactive mode, group analogous passages under the governing principle. Present two or three viable versions, recommend one, and state the factual or structural difference. Do not offer inferior distractors. Use the user's requested channel; when calibrating a PR through inline comments, place the recommended provisional version in the diff and attach the alternatives to that exact line.

After the user decides, distill the principle and versions into the examples, without PR history or reviewer narration, and apply the learned rule to every analogous passage in scope.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

使用 AACT (Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov) PostgreSQL 数据仓库进行批量、历史、聚合性临床试验数据挖掘。Use this skill when the user requests bulk SQL analysis over the full clinical trials data warehouse — historical trial trends, disease landscapes, similar-design matching, or multi-year aggregations across hundreds of thousands of NCT records. 触发场景包括:AACT 查询、临床试验批量分析、PostgreSQL 试验数据、全量 NCT 检索、试验数据挖掘、历史试验分析、clinical trials data warehouse、SQL trials、bulk trial analysis、disease landscape、试验设计相似性匹配、跨年度聚合、sponsor/phase/country 多维统计。**与 clinical-trials-v2 差异**:本 skill 走批量 SQL · 离线大数据(PostgreSQL);v2 走实时 API · 单查询。两者互补:单条 NCT 实时状态用 v2,百万级历史挖掘用本 skill。支持云端公共 PostgreSQL(aact-db.ctti-clinicaltrials.org · 零部署)和每日 dump 本地还原(高性能 · 离线)两种连接方式,自动检测优先用本地。跨平台(macOS/Linux/Windows)参数化 SQL 防注入,read-only 强制保护。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EthanYoQ/Skill-hub112026年10月5日 更新

使用 AACT (Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov) PostgreSQL 数据库进行大批量临床试验历史分析与数据挖掘。触发场景包括:AACT 查询、临床试验批量分析、PostgreSQL 试验数据、全量 NCT 检索、试验数据挖掘、clinical trials data warehouse、疾病领域全景分析、设计相似试验匹配、跨年度试验趋势聚合。本 skill 通过 SQL 接口处理百万级试验记录,支持云端公共 PostgreSQL 服务(aact-db.ctti-clinicaltrials.org)和每日 dump 本地还原两种连接方式,自动检测并优先使用本地高性能模式。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EthanYoQ/Skill-hub112026年10月5日 更新

Use when work produces a deliverable, factual claim, dataset, code change, decision, publication, deployment, automation, or irreversible action whose failure would matter; when the user asks for a quality gate, acceptance criteria, QA, completeness, validation, audit, evidence, preflight, release readiness, or a definition of done; or before claiming completion on medium- or high-risk work. Automatically decide whether a formal gate is warranted, derive task-specific pass/fail criteria, gather evidence, and block unsupported completion. Make sure to use this skill even when the user does not say "quality gate" if consequential work needs acceptance criteria or completion evidence. Skip formal gating for trivial, reversible, low-impact requests.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EthanYoQ/Skill-hub112026年10月5日 更新

Create a changeset file in .changeset/ that describes a user-facing change for the release notes

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EthanYoQ/Skill-hub112026年10月5日 更新

Add a new competitor to the AI Visibility Tool Directory — researches the tool, generates data, takes a screenshot, and inserts into the codebase

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EthanYoQ/Skill-hub112026年10月5日 更新

add-lang

無料

Add tree-sitter language support to codegraph end-to-end — wire the grammar + extractor, write tests, then benchmark extraction quality and retrieval value on 3 popular real-world repos. Use when the user runs /add-lang <language> or asks to add/support a new language (e.g. Lua, Elixir, Zig, OCaml) in codegraph.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EthanYoQ/Skill-hub112026年10月5日 更新

EthanYoQ のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する