Route CEO-first multi-window work into owner-led role loops. Use for 总控/CEO、架构/CTO、内容主编、角色派发与复用、模型路由、来源窗口回调、role-windows 台账、skill 命中统计或 multi-window loop engineering。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when a user edits or criticizes generated copy and you need to extract durable writing-style rules instead of merely remembering surface words.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
This skill turns user edits into reusable style rules. It prevents the agent from doing the shallow version of learning:
用户用了几个词 → 下次多塞这几个词
The correct goal is:
用户改了什么关系、视角、节奏、风险边界或人群钉子 → 下次按这个写作判断工作
Use this skill after the user edits generated text, rejects a tone, or says a draft does not sound like them.
Use it when the user:
不像我, 太编辑, 太 AI, 太正经, 太抽象, 没网感, 像 README, or 像发布会;不是多用这些词,是要有网感;Do not use it to preserve raw private conversations. Extract rules, not transcripts.
Get the model draft and the user-edited version. If the original is not available, still analyze the user edit, but mark the missing comparison.
Completion criterion: you can point to at least one changed phrase, deleted structure, or added line.
Classify each important change:
| Change type | Question |
|---|---|
| Voice | Did the user make it rougher, sharper, calmer, more local, more personal? |
| Viewpoint | Did the user move from expert explanation to participant experience? |
| Relationship | Did the user show what the tool/project does to a person? |
| Specificity | Did the user replace generic terms with an incident, object, role, or scene? |
| Rhythm | Did the user shorten, fragment, add breath, or keep a deliberate rough edge? |
| Risk boundary | Did the user remove over-cautious disclaimers or add factual anchors? |
| Platform fit | Did the user make it more suitable for XHS/Douyin/WeChat/etc.? |
Completion criterion: every accepted user edit is mapped to at least one reason.
Bad extraction:
User likes 疑似、绷不住、抽象.
Better extraction:
User wants high-intensity internet-native judgment: identify the absurd point in a real situation, then say it with half-joke/half-accurate technical self-mockery. Internet words may appear, but should not be forced.
Completion criterion: the rule would still work if none of the original words were reused.
Store 1-3 compact before/after examples or pattern examples. Do not store entire chat logs, platform metrics, credentials, personal directories, or private context.
Completion criterion: each example demonstrates a rule and is safe to publish or share.
Use the smallest durable destination that will affect future behavior:
| Lesson type | Destination |
|---|---|
| User preference that should follow all sessions | memory / user profile |
| Account-specific writing style | account style guide or content repo reference |
| Reusable agent procedure | skill |
| One-off task state | session notes or current repo files, not memory |
| Raw operational data | operations repo only, not public skills |
Completion criterion: the lesson is stored where the next relevant agent/tool can read it.
Write a tiny future-use prompt fragment, for example:
Use the calibrated style rule: websense comes from identifying the absurd point, not stuffing meme words. Keep technical anchors real, but open with the human friction.
Completion criterion: the prompt fragment is specific enough to change a future draft.
When reporting a calibration result, use:
# 风格校准结论
## 1. 用户改动
## 2. 改动背后的规则
## 3. 下次写作要做
## 4. 下次写作不要做
## 5. 可沉淀位置
## 6. 已沉淀 / 待用户确认
Keep it short. The goal is not literary analysis; the goal is future behavior change.
User changes:
我就是那个有无数想法、但被上班榨到一行代码都不想写的技术中登。
into:
轻松干翻我这种有无数想法、但被上班榨到一行代码都不想写的技术中登。
Do not extract:
Use the phrase 技术中登 more.
Extract:
Do not merely introduce the persona. Show the power relationship: the tool/AI/project has so much energy that it embarrasses, replaces, overwhelms, or exposes the person who was supposed to control it.
When turning a private calibration into a public skill:
user-edited sample / confirmed style sample wording over private chat provenance.不是这些词,是网感, immediately rewrite the rule around judgment.还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Route CEO-first multi-window work into owner-led role loops. Use for 总控/CEO、架构/CTO、内容主编、角色派发与复用、模型路由、来源窗口回调、role-windows 台账、skill 命中统计或 multi-window loop engineering。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Read-only first workflow for diagnosing application incidents by collecting service, log, network, configuration, and functional evidence before proposing any fix.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Run user-authorized black-box web security tests and evidence-based reports. Use for 黑盒安全测试、渗透测试、数据泄露、未授权访问、公开 JS/API、登录爆破防护、CORS 或安全响应头检查。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Choose the narrowest reliable browser surface across Codex Browser, signed-in Chrome, Playwright CLI, and platform scripts. Use for browser automation, logged-in workflows, UI inspection, screenshots, form filling, publish previews, or frontend QA.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
提议并执行 rubric 或 bucket 升级。两种模式:**完整 rubric bump**(最高风险动作,5 步强制 + 跨模型审核)和 **--bucket-only 轻量重校**(只换 bucket 边界,不动 rubric 公式)。**Phase 2 强制走 cheat-score-blind sub-agent 给校准池重打分**——不接受 self-scored fallback。触发词:"升级 rubric"/"bump rubric"/"更新公式"/"我想加一个维度"/"调整权重"/"重校桶"/"recalibrate bucket"。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
初始化 cheat-on-content 内容校准工作区。仅在用户明确开始该工作流,或其子 skill 确认缺少 .cheat-state.json 时使用;不响应一般项目初始化、安装诊断或 Codex 首次会话。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。