本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

dsh-trim-cot-leakage

Use when auditing or fixing prose that reads like a leaked reasoning transcript — dead design-session citations such as (decision N), audit item codes, or §N of uncommitted drafts; change narration such as "used to", "no longer", "this cut"; stack or review vantage ("a later PR in this stack", "rejected in review"); reviewer-addressed justifications; control-flow narration; or hedged planning residue in comments, JSDoc, docs, or Agent Notes.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md7.0 KB
  • references/examples.md11.0 KB
  • references/recall-batteries.md3.6 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。

Trimming Chain-of-Thought Leakage

Chain-of-thought leakage is prose whose vantage is the authoring session rather than the repository: it cites artifacts only that session could see, narrates the change instead of the state, or argues with a reviewer who has left. The fix is never deletion alone when a passage carries factual clauses — restate each so it stands at HEAD, then delete the transcript around it; a passage carrying none (an audit code, control-flow narration) is deleted outright. REQUIRED BACKGROUND: dsh-prose-standard owns the complete-proposition rule this skill applies; the committed-artifact-citations note owns the citation rule's rationale. It is guidance, not a script.

The one test

For every suspect passage ask: could a reader at HEAD, with no access to any session transcript, PR thread, or uncommitted draft, resolve every reference and verify every claim? If no, restate the surviving facts from the repository's vantage and delete the rest. If yes, it is not leakage, however historical it sounds — but resolvability only clears this skill's bar: on current-state surfaces (READMEs, docs, JSDoc) a resolvable change story is still change narration, and class 3 routes it to its sanctioned home.

Taxonomy

  1. Dead design-session citations — (decision 7), (audit C2), design §4.7, plan §1.4, phase labels (T4, W3, P-I), "the design ledger", "(B ruling)". If the decision has a committed owner, cite it by name and path; otherwise delete the citation and restate its factual clause to stand alone.
  2. Stack and PR vantage — "a later PR in this stack", "this PR adds", "the previous commit". State the shipped mechanism or the extension point; deferred work moves to a TODO marker or an issue reference.
  3. Change narration and version stamps — "used to", "no longer", "the old X", and indexical stamps ("v1", "this cut", "today", "now" contrasting with a past state). State the present behavior; a fixed regression becomes a present-tense counterfactual ("without X, Y happens"), never repo history ("used to Y").
  4. Review choreography — "Rejected in review:", "the reviewer confirmed", draft ordinals ("v5 of this note"), round attributions. Keep the surviving decision and rationale as plain fact; delete who said it when.
  5. Reviewer-addressed justification — "the cast is safe — it simply…", "this is correct because…". A comment arguing its own correctness addresses a reviewer, not a maintainer. State the invariant that makes the code safe, or delete the comment if the code shows it.
  6. Restatement and derivation transcripts — control-flow narration ("first we X, then we Y"), test walkthroughs, proofs of obvious branches. Delete; keep only a non-obvious contract or invariant.
  7. Hedges and planning residue — "probably fine for now", "should be enough", deferrals with no marker. Promote to TODO/FIXME or restate as the actual bound; delete the hedge.
  8. Authoring-language slips — untranslated working-language fragments (端, 设计稿, ---- 私有 ---- separators) in prose whose language is otherwise English, or the reverse in a zh counterpart. Translate or delete.

What is not leakage

Unaided citation passes fail in both directions by deleting durable references and keeping dead ones. Apply these keep rules as written; examples calibrates each:

  • Issue references — #1470, TODO(name):, "issue #N owns the follow-up" resolve at HEAD; keep them on any surface, including READMEs. Do not relocate them to Agent Notes.
  • Merged-PR and issue citations inside Agent Notes and postmortems — sanctioned evidence per the documentation standard's change-story routing.
  • Suppression justifications — oxlint-disable … -- reason, coverage-ignore reasons, empty-catch explanations are required prose; fix a false reason, never delete it.
  • Counterfactual-present regression pins — "without X, Y happens", "a naive X would…".
  • Measured bounds — "(measured: 512 nests ≈ 0.15s)" calibrating a constant; the provenance word "measured" is load-bearing.
  • Runtime old/new states — "the old connection drains before the new one accepts" is runtime lifecycle, not change history.
  • Historical stage names inside a note's change-story sections — "the first cut shipped X" is current-state-safe there; indexical stamps ("this cut") stay banned everywhere.
  • External references that resolve outside the repo by design — standards sections (RFC 9110 §10.1.5), Figma frame names; the §-ban covers uncommitted internal drafts, not external standards or committed docs that own their §-numbering.
  • Project voice and genre forms — "we" as project voice; a note's Alternatives-considered section.

Workflow

  1. Scope and exclusions per dsh-prose-standard: require an explicit scope; never touch vendor/, .agents/notes/archived/, or recorded fixtures and snapshots — recorded model output and sealed history keep their original voice.
  2. Audit read-only first: run the recall batteries (with --hidden so .agents/ is searched), then judge every hit semantically. The batteries are probes, not the definition — each review round of the original purge found cases the batteries missed, so also read the densest prose in scope (module JSDoc, READMEs, Agent Notes) without a pattern in hand.
  3. Fix owner-first per surface: generated catalogs → fix the source JSDoc or generator template, then regenerate; type-equivalence fences → fix the source JSDoc, then re-paste both bilingual pages (verify-type-equiv pins them); bilingual pairs → update the counterpart and re-record per dsh-translate-docs; model-visible strings → wording is behavior, so flag for a snapshot-backed change instead of silently rewording.
  4. Before deleting anything, enumerate the passage's propositions (prose-standard) and check the overcorrection traps: trims that flip an obligation into an endorsement, promote a hypothetical to a shipped feature, delete a true fact, or drop provenance.
  5. Verify: re-run the batteries expecting only sanctioned keeps, this skill's own directory, and the owning note's quoted evidence; confirm every remaining citation resolves at HEAD; run the gates for touched surfaces (doc-sync for docs, verify-type-equiv, verify-translation-pairing).

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