根据任务的规模和阶段,指导你选择相关技能及其使用顺序,涵盖想法梳理、实现和故障排查,帮助确定下一步以及如何衔接后续工作。
- 选择从想法到实现的步骤
- 确定故障排查的起点
- 规划分多次会话完成的开发
将无法独自判断的问题整理成供知情者填写的问卷。先确认回答者的角色及所需事实,再生成带回答栏的Markdown文档,用于书面答复或会议填写。
Turn a decision you can't fully answer into a questionnaire for someone else to fill in.
将无法独自解决的问题整理成问卷,交给掌握必要知识的人回答。先确认对方的角色、专业知识及其与使用者的关系,再梳理希望从回答中获得的事实或需要做出的决定。根据这些信息生成Markdown文档,将重要问题排在前面。
适合需要借助专家或负责人的知识才能推进决策的情况。可以把文档交给对方,让其在方便时填写,也可以在会议中共同填写。起点是谁来回答、希望得到什么,而不是先要求使用者回答自己并不了解的内容。
该技能设置为由用户主动调用。制作前会确认回答者及所需信息。文档包含目的、背景、填写方法和每题的回答栏,也允许填写不确定的内容或仅回答一部分。文件输出到当前目录,名称为to-questionnaire-<slug>.md。
本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。
AI 仅根据 SKILL.md 的内容,从 4 个方面进行了评估。星标数和热度不计入评估。
总分按每项 A=25 分、B=15 分、C=5 分相加。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月19日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。
安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Turn something the user can't answer alone into a questionnaire: a Markdown document they hand to one person to fill in async, or fill out together over a meeting. The recipient holds knowledge the user lacks; the questionnaire pulls it out of them.
Grill the send, not the subject. Interview the user only about the send, which they can always answer: who it goes to, and what they need back. The questions in the document then target the gap between what the recipient knows and what the user needs.
Who is it going to? Ask, in one exchange, the recipient's role, expertise, and relationship to the user. This fixes the questionnaire's tone and how much context it must carry. Done when you know who the recipient is and what they know that the user doesn't.
What do you need back? Ask, in one exchange, the specific decisions or facts the user can't resolve alone and needs from this person. Done when you have a concrete list of what the user must walk away able to do or decide.
Write the questionnaire. Draft questions aimed at the gap from steps 1–2, following the Document structure below. Write it to to-questionnaire-<slug>.md in the current directory (slug from the topic) and report the path. Done when the file exists and every item the user named in step 2 is covered by a question.
Frame the document as a discovery questionnaire: the user lacks context, the recipient holds it. Order questions most-important-first, since async means you may only get one pass, and group them under ## headings by theme once there are more than a handful. Write it using the template below.
Purpose: why this questionnaire exists and the decision riding on it.
From: <the user>, To: <the recipient>, How your answers will be used: <where they go>
One paragraph orienting a recipient who wasn't in the user's head. Enough to answer well, not a page.
Deadline and rough effort. Partial answers and "I don't know" are useful: flag anything you're unsure of rather than skipping it.
One ## section per theme. Under each, its questions, most-important-first. Every question is one idea, never compound, with an answer stub directly beneath, and a one-line why this matters only where the question could be misread or invite a throwaway answer.
Why this matters: it decides whether we provision for burst traffic now or defer it.
</question-example>
A closing catch-all: anything we didn't ask that we should know?
</questionnaire-template>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。
根据任务的规模和阶段,指导你选择相关技能及其使用顺序,涵盖想法梳理、实现和故障排查,帮助确定下一步以及如何衔接后续工作。
在单次会话中协调承担不同任务的子智能体,推进长期目标。后台工作与用户对话同时进行,并改进共享规范、工作环境和后续任务所需的信息访问条件。
将进行中的对话整理为交接摘要,移除敏感信息,明确后续重点、参考资料和建议技能,再启动新的后台智能体,从当前工作目录继续处理任务。
以指定提交、分支或标签为基准,从开发规范和原始需求两个角度审查代码变更。分别报告规范问题与需求缺漏,便于独立判断两方面的结果。
帮助设计用法精简、内部集中处理复杂逻辑的模块。通过统一术语和判断标准,评估模块是否易用、实现替换位置是否合适,以及是否便于测试。
通过能检测具体症状的测试或脚本,调查难以复现的故障和性能下降。缩小失败条件,验证多个原因假设,完成修复后检查原始复现流程及防止复发的测试。