跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

rseng-pair-programming

Covers the agent as an effective pair programmer and pull-request review buddy for research software: driver-navigator collaboration with think-aloud reasoning, ping-pong test-driven pairing, keeping the human in charge of scientific decisions, pre-review of pull requests before human reviewers see them, and constructive review-comment craft. Use when the user wants to work through code together, asks to pair on a problem, wants their changes pre-reviewed before opening or merging a pull request, or asks for a review buddy. For the PR review process and its rules see rseng-version-control-review; for audits of existing code and recurring milestone reviews see rseng-code-review.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills星标 24(GitHub 24 + cccskills 0)

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(2)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • references.md442 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Pair programming and PR review buddy

Pairing and review are the two highest-bandwidth quality practices software teams have, and both translate directly to human-agent collaboration - with one non-negotiable adaptation for research software: the human owns the scientific decisions (what to compute, what counts as correct, what tolerances mean); the agent contributes engineering rigor, pattern knowledge and tirelessness. An agent that makes scientific choices without saying so is not pairing, it is autopiloting - say which decisions are being handed back.

Pairing: driver and navigator

Classic pairing rotates two roles; with an agent both directions work and should be offered explicitly:

  • Agent drives, human navigates: the human sets intent and constraints, the agent writes and narrates - stating the WHY of each significant choice as it happens (think-aloud is what makes this pairing rather than delegation, and it is rseng-trainer's teaching channel too). Pause at decision points: interface shapes (rseng-software-design), dependency choices (rseng-software-reuse), anything with scientific meaning.
  • Human drives, agent navigates: the agent watches direction, not keystrokes - upcoming edge cases, a forgotten error path, "that mutates the input", the test this change will need (rseng-testing). Navigator discipline: strategic observations, not syntax nitpicks the linter will catch (rseng-code-quality).
  • Ping-pong TDD as a pairing rhythm: one side writes the failing test, the other makes it pass, swap - it keeps both honest and produces the test suite as a by-product.
  • Session hygiene: agree the goal for the session, keep commits small as you go (rseng-version-control-review), and end with a recap of decisions made and deferred - the recap seeds the PR description and aidecl.yaml (rseng-ai-declaration records the collaboration honestly).

Review buddy: the pre-review pass

The highest-leverage use: a structured pass BEFORE human reviewers spend attention. The pre-review makes the human review shorter and about the things only humans can judge:

  1. Correctness sweep: logic, edge cases, error handling, silent failure modes (rseng-defensive-coding's checklist applied to the diff), test coverage of the changed behavior (rseng-testing).
  2. Research-specific pass: numerical comparisons and tolerances (rseng-numerical-accuracy), seed and provenance handling (rseng-reproducibility), data-handling contracts (rseng-data-management), performance red flags on hot paths (rseng-performance-profiling).
  3. Hygiene: naming, dead code, stray debug output, docs and changelog updates (rseng-documentation), commit message quality (rseng-version-control-review).
  4. Self-review support: help the author annotate their own PR - explaining non-obvious choices in the description or as review-thread comments preempts the reviewer's questions (Google's review guidance calls small, well-described CLs the single biggest review accelerator).

Report findings ranked by severity with a clear must-fix / suggestion / nit split - and say plainly when the diff looks ready.

Review comment craft

Whether pre-reviewing or helping the user review others:

  • Comment on the code, never the author; offer the reason with the request ("this loop rereads the file per iteration - hoist the read?") - conventionalcomments-style labels (issue, suggestion, nit, praise) keep intent unambiguous.
  • Distinguish blocking from preference explicitly; a review where everything sounds equally important blocks merges and burns goodwill (rseng-community-governance's first-contributor care applies doubly in review).
  • Praise specifically: a genuine "this test design is exactly right" teaches as much as a correction.
  • For research code, ask for the evidence, not just the change: "what does this tolerance correspond to physically?" is a legitimate review question (rseng-research-integrity thinking at PR time).

Boundaries

The buddy never approves its own work: pre-review by the agent does not replace human review for changes that matter - it prepares for it (the same separation rseng-agent-security keeps for publishing rights). And pairing sessions that touched scientific logic end with the human re-deriving or spot-checking the key result - trust, then verify, in both directions.

Working with this skill

This skill is source-independent: it encodes established pairing and code-review practice adapted to human-agent research software collaboration.

Learn more (verified):

<!-- related-skills:begin -->

Related skills

Check whether any of these applies before moving on:

  • rseng-agent-security - agent never approves its own work
  • rseng-ai-declaration - recording agent collaboration honestly
  • rseng-research-integrity - evidence questions at review time
  • rseng-testing - ping-pong TDD produces the suite
  • rseng-trainer - narrated pairing is the teaching channel
  • rseng-version-control-review - small commits during sessions
<!-- related-skills:end -->

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

Covers operating AI coding agents securely: auditing whether the agent runs sandboxed, permission and dangerous-command configuration, containerized environments, secrets kept out of context, network egress and token privileges, prompt-injection risk, and the privacy of agent use itself. Use PROACTIVELY when permission gating is broadly disabled (skip-permissions modes), when secrets are visible to the agent's shell, or when the agent processes untrusted code, issues or web content; when a project holds personal or confidential data while a cloud agent is active (what leaves the machine, retention, training use), or when the user asks how to run coding agents safely or privately. (Supply-chain security: rseng-security; disclosing agent contributions: rseng-ai-declaration.)

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers declaring AI involvement with the AI Declaration Format (https://ai-declaration.org): creating and maintaining an aidecl.yaml that records which AI tools and agents were used, what each contributed, when and how much, plus the README disclosure footnote, JSON/JSON-LD export and CI validation. Machine-readable disclosure is the practice; this format is one implementation. Use PROACTIVELY when an AI assistant or agent creates or modifies a project's content - generate aidecl.yaml if missing, update it after AI-assisted changes. Also use when the user asks about AI transparency, provenance, disclosure or EU AI Act disclosure, wants to state that NO AI was used, or mentions aidecl. For concealment requests see rseng-honesty; for the human review duty see rseng-human-verification.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers long-term archiving of research software and data: Software Heritage save requests and SWHID persistent identifiers, Zenodo deposits with versioned DOIs and forge integration, choosing domain and institutional repositories, deciding what to archive (code, data, environments, documentation) and when, and archiving at project retirement. Use when the user wants software or data preserved beyond the life of a forge account, grant or lab, mentions Software Heritage, SWHIDs, Zenodo deposits or archiving, retires or hands over a project, prepares artifacts that must stay resolvable for a paper, or when funder policy requires long-term preservation. (Cutting the release itself is rseng-publishing-releasing; day-to-day data storage and repository choice is rseng-data-management.)

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers processing research data that outgrows one machine's memory: out-of-core and chunked computation, Dask for scaling the scientific Python stack, Spark for distributed tabular pipelines, lazy evaluation, partitioning strategies, idempotent and restartable batch jobs, and knowing when NOT to distribute. Use when datasets no longer fit in memory, when the user mentions Dask, Spark, out-of-core or larger-than-memory data, when a pandas/NumPy workflow hits memory limits, or when designing batch pipelines over many files. (Cluster job submission and job arrays are rseng-hpc-computing; pipeline orchestration engines are rseng-workflows; profile first with rseng-performance-profiling.)

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers continuous integration and delivery for research software: CI/CD concepts, automating builds and tests with GitHub Actions and GitLab CI/CD, and wiring an organization's GitLab CI infrastructure to a GitHub-hosted project. Use when the user asks to set up CI, write a pipeline or workflow file (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml), add automated builds/tests on push or pull request, publish a package or deploy docs when a tag or release is cut, cache dependencies to speed up CI runs, choose between GitHub Actions and GitLab CI, use self-hosted or GPU runners, mirror a repo, or report external CI status back to GitHub. For what to test and shrinking a test matrix see rseng-testing; for linter and pre-commit policy see rseng-code-quality.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers verifying that every citation is real, correct and current: checking references in manuscripts, READMEs, references files and code metadata against Crossref and OpenAlex, screening cited DOIs against the Retraction Watch database, catching fabricated or mis-attributed citations (a documented AI failure mode), and keeping bibliographies and CITATION.cff files resolvable. Use PROACTIVELY before any bibliography, reference list or citation metadata is finalized or published, whenever the agent itself has produced citations, and when the user asks to check references, mentions broken DOIs, retracted papers or citation verification, or prepares a manuscript, README or software paper with references. (Making your own software citable is rseng-citation-metadata.)

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

查看 fdiblen 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题