本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

teach

Teacher mode — turn a session recap / article / docs / concept / piece of code / bug into an incremental mini-course with comprehension checks, quizzes, and an auto-saved summary note. Invoke /teach [topic or URL]. Triggers — "explain it like a teacher", "walk me through what we did", "turn this into a lesson", "quiz me", "teach me", "let's learn this together".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.4 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。

You are a wise and ruthlessly effective teacher. The goal: the learner GENUINELY understands the material (what was done this session, an article/doc, a concept, a chunk of code, the cause of a bug) — not just nods "got it".

Explain in a teaching way; define technical terms on first use. Match the learner's level.

Source material (read it together)

The topic may arrive as a URL, a file, a library, or just a question — pull the material yourself:

  • Article / page / docs by URL → fetch it (read together, break it down piece by piece).
  • Library / SDK / framework → a docs source (current docs, not from memory).
  • Dig deeper / a disputed fact → web search; for serious research, a research pass.
  • Project code → read the relevant files, run/debug if it helps.

Principles

  • Incrementally, step by step — do NOT dump everything at the end. Before moving to the next block, confirm the current one landed: both at a high level (why it matters) and low level (the logic, the edge cases).
  • Keep a running checklist in a scratch .md — what the learner should understand, ticked off as it lands. Cover three blocks:
    1. Problem — what it is, WHY it arose, what the forks/alternatives were.
    2. Solution — what was done, WHY this way, the design decisions, the edge cases handled.
    3. Context — why it matters at all, what the change affects.
  • Press on "why" and go down the "why → why again" chain. Cover "what" and "how" too, but understanding the problem matters most.

How to run it

  1. To find where the learner is — FIRST ask them to restate their current understanding in their own words. Build from there, filling gaps (don't lecture from zero over what they already know).
  2. The learner can request a level: eli5 (explain like I'm 5), eli14, intern. Tune depth to the request.
  3. Quizzes — via the question tool: open or multiple-choice. ALWAYS vary the position of the correct answer between questions and don't reveal it before they answer. After the answer — explain why right/wrong, and go deeper if it was a guess or shallow.
  4. Show real code or run/debug when it helps the mechanics land.

Summary note (auto-saved)

When a block is covered (and a final one at the end), save a summary to a notes directory of the learner's choice.

  • Filename: <YYYY-MM-DD> <Topic>.md — use the real date.
  • Structure: topic + source; key ideas in the learner's OWN words (not copy-paste); questions covered → answers; what's still unclear / to revisit; [[wiki-links]] to related notes.
  • The note is living: extend the existing file on a topic, don't spawn duplicates.

Goal of the mode

Don't consider the lesson done until the learner has demonstrated understanding of EVERY checklist item (via restatement + quizzes, not "seems clear"). But the learner is in charge: if they want to pause or exit, respect it — offer to return to the open items later (and save the partial note).

Origin: Anthropic's guided-learning prompt + a "teacher + auto-notes" workflow. Adapted into a reusable skill.

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

goal

無料

Autonomous goal loop — give it ONE goal plus how to verify it, the agent runs check→fix→check itself and comes back only with the finished result (code with audit, research with fact-check, content with critique, audit/backtest). Self-verification instead of constant supervision, with hard safety guards. Vary the loop with a verification rubric designed before it runs. Triggers — "work autonomously to the result", "don't come back until it's done", "run the loop yourself", "drive it to done".

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。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

konsilium

無料

Council — 5 independent AI perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis (adapted from karpathy/llm-council for Claude Code). For high-stakes decisions where the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the data — go/no-go before real consequences, critiquing a methodology, choosing between competing approaches, pressure-testing a conclusion you're attached to, designing risk controls. NOT for log/data analysis (the council has no data access) and not for factual lookups. Triggers — "convene the council", "run it past the council", "go/no-go", "pressure-test this".

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。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

longread

無料

Write an analytical longform piece — a 4-phase pipeline from raw idea to finished text, with research-backed facts and a devil's-advocate pass before publishing. Invoke /longread <topic>. Triggers — "write a longread about X", "write an analytical breakdown of Y", "write an expert post", "turn this into an article".

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。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

pre-push

無料

A gate before git push / deploy — assembled from your own tools (secret-grep + slop-scan + code-review + build/compile + optional worktree isolation), so AI junk (slop / bugs / secrets / uncompiled code) never reaches a remote or a production server. Turns "I hope it's clean" into a verifiable criterion. Branches: web/OSS (git push/PR) vs deploy-to-server service. Triggers — "check before push", "clean push", "gate before push", "finalize before commit", "run before deploy".

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。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

proof

無料

Prove — or honestly fail to prove — a specific technical claim: "the fix works", "it's deployed", "the service is running", "the site is done", "there are no vulnerabilities". Atomizes the claim, picks the shortest decisive signal on the evidence ladder, and returns a verdict from a fixed vocabulary (pass / partial / fail / skip) with an explicit coverage boundary. NOT code review, NOT a fix, NOT orchestration — only "what is proven, and what we merely hope". Triggers — "prove it works", "is it really done?", "are you sure?", "we deployed — is it live?", "verify that", "did we actually check?".

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。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

Security launch audit for a public web app BEFORE you ship or hand it to a client — "vibe coders are getting sued", systematized. An executable pipeline: classify (static / full-stack / AI) → run sections (secrets+supply-chain, DB, auth, infra+headers, legal, LLM/injection) orchestrating deterministic tools + manual checks → GO/NO-GO report. Adapted from Prajwal Tomar's playbook, extended with prompt-injection / supply-chain / secret-history / dependency-CVE layers. NOT the same as pre-push (that = clean push; this = is the product itself safe to launch). Triggers — "security checklist for the site", "audit before launch", "is the site safe", "check before handing to client".

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。

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026年9月7日 更新

Sanexxxx777 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する