本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

principle-build-the-lever

Apply to any non-trivial work, not just bulk work: edits, migrations, analyses, checks. Build the tool that does it or proves it (codemod, script, generator, or a skill your subagents follow) instead of working by hand. The tool is the artifact a reviewer can rerun.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md2.3 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。

Build the Lever

When the work isn't trivial, build the tool that does it instead of doing it by hand.

A codemod, generator, or script does the work the same way every time and reruns for free. The tool is one artifact a reviewer can read and rerun to check the work. Hand-done changes can only be re-verified by redoing them. A deterministic script turns "trust me" into "run this".

Default to building the lever. Skip it only when the task is trivial, a couple of obvious edits you can see at a glance.

  • Do the first unit by hand to learn the recipe, then build the tool. Prove it by rerunning it on that unit and diffing against your hand-done version. Make the lever safe to rerun.
  • Codemod or script for edits, generator for repetitive files, a dump-to-sqlite query for analysis, a rerunnable check for verification.
  • A deterministic lever beats fan-out. If the tool can process every unit in one pass, run it yourself. Don't fan out delegates to hand-apply what a script can do.
  • When you fan work out to subagents, write the lever as a skill they all read: the recipe, the verification contract, and the do-not-touch fences in one artifact. Keep it outside the delegates' write scope so they can't quietly edit the contract.
  • Applying this principle produces a file. If you cited it and there is no codemod, script, generator, or delegate skill in the diff, you didn't apply it.
  • Commit the lever when the work outlives the session.

The bar is triviality, not repetition. A one-off still earns a lever when the lever is what makes the work checkable. Per the Laziness Protocol, build the smallest script that does or proves the job, never a framework.

Distinct from Encode Lessons in Structure, which makes a recurring instruction a durable guardrail. This is throughput and reviewability on the work in front of you. For scripting the verification itself, see Prove It Works.

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

architect

無料

Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in. Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,8982026年10月13日 更新

arena

無料

Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,8982026年10月13日 更新

Use for "automate me", "create/update/refresh my -mode skill", "turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via plugin-dev:skill-development + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,8982026年10月13日 更新

babysit

無料

Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,8982026年10月13日 更新

Vet a perf measurement (limiter, tuning, limits, errors, repeatability, relevance, and whether the work happened) before you report or act on it. Use when you run a benchmark or report a speedup or regression you measured.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,8982026年10月13日 更新

Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code ('make X public', 'X already handles Y') before you design against that assertion.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,8982026年10月13日 更新

michael-denyer のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する