跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

ce-prototype

Build a disposable prototype to test how a product should work, feel, or look before committing to an approach. Let the user experience it, record their choices, and carry those decisions into requirements or further planning.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Build a throwaway prototype to answer how something should work, feel, or read. Use when committing the wrong answer would be expensive to unravel and a cheap sketch cannot settle it. Not a rough visual probe during brainstorming, not for deciding what to build, not polishing a feature that already works, not implementing the real thing.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Trying a navigation flow before committing to it
  • Judging layout density and color choices
  • Resolving design questions that sketches cannot answer
  • Applying prototype decisions to existing requirements

包含的文件(10)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • assets/annotate.css3.7 KB
  • assets/annotate.js30.2 KB
  • references/annotation-loop.md4.9 KB
  • references/build.md4.5 KB
  • references/craft-floor.md4.1 KB
  • references/preview.md11.4 KB
  • references/scoping.md4.4 KB
  • references/write-back.md4.1 KB
  • scripts/light-webserver.js42.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Prototype

Build a throwaway prototype at the fidelity that can answer this question, before committing an approach later work will treat as given. Then apply the decisions or hand off.

Do not fake the dimension being tested. Modality, fidelity, and medium all follow from that one rule. A question about how a flow or state model behaves is settled by driving it, so a screen that only looks like the product does not answer it. A question about how a layout or a mark reads is settled by seeing it at real finish, so a thin sketch does not answer it either. The user's own perception settles the question, never your judgment of the artifact.

Result: the user decided how the product should work or feel against a prototype that did not fake what they were deciding. Next consumer: an existing markdown Product Contract, or ce-brainstorm / ce-plan with this session as the seed. Done: the user settled the questions that needed an artifact, or they apply and continue into brainstorm or plan. Their choice is the settlement, not a direction you inferred. Not: a decision a cheap sketch settles, polish, or shipping the prototype as a final product.

If there is no person to experience the prototype — mode:pipeline, a headless run, or a calling skill that reports no human is present — stop. Do not start a preview or invent how it should feel. Return that this skill needs a human. A calling skill that has a human present (an interactive lfg run, for example) is an ordinary attended run.

User-runnable invocation rendering. The attended re-run in that refusal and the next-skill recommendation when the user applies print invocation syntax. Default to /ce-prototype, /ce-brainstorm, and /ce-plan; use $ce-prototype, $ce-brainstorm, and $ce-plan only on Codex or a host that documents dollar-prefixed skill invocation. Render only the invocation as inline code; output one form only.

Scope the question

Read references/scoping.md before you ask the user anything or touch the repo. That read is not optional. It defines how the question arrives and the scoped repo read of what the question touches — do not scan the tree. It also defines narrow vs wide, sizing, the go-ahead message, and how the remaining questions change after each decision. Do not build until authorized. A request that already is to prototype a named thing is that authorization after scoping.

Build it

Read references/build.md and references/preview.md before writing anything. Once an isolated web preview is up, load references/annotation-loop.md. Overlay runs and non-web runs stay on chat.

After they proceed, speak only when they can act on something new, in one short line naming what happened: a screen is up, the helper URL is live, or a blocker only they can lift. That annotation loop defines the line after an applied revision and silence while a wait is parked.

A question is settled by seeing when the judgment lands on the rendered result: how a layout reads, what a palette does, how dense a screen feels. It is settled by driving when the judgment lands on what happens as the user moves through it: a flow, a state model, how a control answers. Load references/craft-floor.md for a seeing question. It carries the quality floor and the avenue-difference rule; neither lives here. A question settled by driving does not load it and gains no finish from it.

Default substrate: the web, whatever the product is written in — a native app's navigation feel gets a web approximation, not SwiftUI. references/build.md defines yields and artifacts.

Build under .context/compound-engineering/ce-prototype/<date>-<slug>/, so the prototype survives for the implementation that follows. Fall back to /tmp/compound-engineering-<uid>/ce-prototype/<date>-<slug>/, where survival is best-effort. references/build.md names every case that forces the fallback root.

The .context path has to be gitignored first. Probe it from the repo root with git -C <repo root> check-ignore -q .context/compound-engineering/; the trailing slash is required. When it is not covered, the offer to add that line comes before the root is resolved, or accepting it cannot help this run.

references/preview.md defines that offer and the resolution that follows it. Do not create the run directory yourself; a second claim splits the screens from the capsule.

Scale into the existing app as a throwaway overlay when the user asks, or when the question is density or chrome on an existing page — an isolated page hides that. It is the one path that touches the product tree. Never commit it. When the try ends, restore only the files you changed. If you cannot undo them cleanly, name the files you left modified rather than handing off a dirty tree. Never delete a kept prototype: throwaway describes the code, not a request to remove it.

Keep the decisions

Keep a run capsule at decisions.md in this run's directory, so the next skill does not need this session. references/build.md lists what it carries. Point at the prototype; do not reproduce it. Include only what changes later planning. Do not treat decisions.md as a plan: applying writes the Product Contract or the recap, and the capsule is only continuity.

Update the capsule when you are confident a choice has settled — the user judged the artifact and chose, including any adjustments they attached. If you are not confident, do not write. Do not pause to confirm every write. Keep the winner and those adjustments in the prototype.

Read decisions.md before building for the next related question, and work out which questions are still worth building for. references/scoping.md defines how that list changes. If what they decided changed what they want to build rather than answering the question you asked, stop and hand back what you learned instead of building for a question they have moved past. Otherwise stay in this skill for it. Do not bounce to brainstorm or plan while a related question still needs an artifact, do not start an unrelated campaign, and do not keep prototyping once they apply.

Apply or continue

When the user applies:

  • If this run has a directly related brainstorm or plan — passed on invoke, passed by the calling skill, or named in this session as the file this prototype is for — load references/write-back.md and follow it. Markdown and HTML both. Use decisions.md when present. Do not pick a plan because one exists in the repo.
  • If there is no such file or relatedness is unclear: do not mint a plan or a third note. Recap from decisions.md when present, carrying the decisions and, when the run left one behind, the prototype path — an overlay run has none, so say that rather than pointing at something you undid. That recap is a complete outcome, not a degraded one.

Then continue. If a calling skill invoked this, return the choices in decisions.md and let it continue. Otherwise recommend a next skill and pass this session as the seed. After a write-back, recommend ce-plan to regenerate implementation planning for the changed requirements. After a file-free run, recommend ce-brainstorm when product-level questions remain, or ce-plan when the session is enough to plan. Print that recommendation per the rendering rule above.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

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。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Monitor an open GitHub pull request over time, respond to review feedback, and address automated check failures. Apply and push fixes, then report whether it appears ready to merge or what still blocks progress.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Monitoring a pull request until it appears ready to merge
  • Addressing review feedback as it arrives
  • Handling automated check failures during review
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Develop independent solutions to a defined problem, compare them against shared requirements, and combine useful contributions into a coherent recommendation. An independent assessment and evidence checks support the selection, while unresolved tradeoffs and verification needs remain explicit.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing concrete solutions to a defined problem
  • Developing rough options before choosing an approach
  • Comparing architectural or product proposals
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Turn a vague feature idea into clear requirements through dialogue. Define what to build, its scope, and success criteria, then capture the result in a short chat summary or a requirements document ready for implementation planning.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Clarifying a vague feature idea
  • Narrowing the scope of an ambitious improvement
  • Documenting requirements before implementation planning
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Review code changes or a pull request for bugs, effects on existing behavior, test gaps, and project standards. Receive findings supported by the code and a clear account of review coverage, with local fixes available when explicitly requested.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing a pull request before release
  • Checking changes for bugs and test gaps
  • Applying review findings locally
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

ce-commit

免费

Save working changes as local Git commits with messages that explain the outcome. Follow the project's commit style, select files explicitly, and split clearly separate changes into a few logical commits when appropriate.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Saving completed work as a local commit
  • Writing messages that explain the outcome
  • Separating unrelated changes into commits
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Commit and push code changes, then open a pull request with a clear title and description. You can also draft or update PR descriptions and hand published requests to the follow-up monitoring workflow.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Committing changes and opening a pull request
  • Drafting only a PR title and description
  • Updating an existing PR description
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

查看 EveryInc 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题