跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

diagnosing-superpowers

读取 superpowers 会话记录,调查重复工作、偏离计划、耗时及令牌消耗。以文件路径和行号为依据整理经过,生成有证据支持的报告。

原文查看原文说明

Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

AI 评分90分/ 100查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 调查重复工作或偏离计划的情况
  • 查看会话耗时和令牌消耗
  • 确认技能是否被使用
  • 准备 superpowers 缺陷报告

中文介绍

功能

diagnosing-superpowers 读取使用 superpowers 的会话记录,并依据证据报告发生的情况。它整理用户期望与实际行为,调查技能使用、计划遵循情况、重复工作、受阻环节、质量、与用户请求的冲突,以及耗时和令牌消耗。每项发现都会附上记录文件的路径和行号。

适用场景

适合回顾重复执行任务、忽略计划、未使用技能或耗时过长的会话。除当前会话外,也可分析通过编号或路径指定的历史记录。需要整理缺陷报告的材料时也可以使用。

使用示例

  • “请根据记录,报告本次会话重复执行相同工作的经过。”
  • “请调查指定会话的耗时和令牌消耗。”
  • “请根据报告起草 GitHub issue。”

注意事项

会读取磁盘上的会话记录,但不修改原始记录。分析流程会使用多个独立代理。断定技能本身存在缺陷或提出修改建议不在范围内。仅在收到请求时准备共享数据;发布 issue 或创建归档文件前,需要审阅内容并获得批准。

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。

客观评估

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。

指令清晰度能否看出何时使用、做什么
A良好明确调查出现问题的会话,并以 path:line 证据报告经过。
步骤具体性步骤、输入输出和示例是否具体
A良好列出需求确认、记录定位、七个分析维度、报告、条件性共享步骤和模板。
安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
A良好禁止修改原始记录,规定共享资料须脱敏和审查,发布或归档前须批准。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足提供记录定位参考资料,但未说明多代理或 gh 使用环境的配置方法。

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。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

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

包含的文件(20)

  • SKILL.md6.7 KB
  • prompts/analyst-common.md1.5 KB
  • prompts/cost-and-time.md1.6 KB
  • prompts/plan-adherence.md1.6 KB
  • prompts/quality-evidence.md1.4 KB
  • prompts/repeated-work.md1.4 KB
  • prompts/request-conflicts.md1011 B
  • prompts/scrub-audit.md1.3 KB
  • prompts/scrub.md1.4 KB
  • prompts/similar-session.md1.7 KB
  • prompts/skill-timeline.md1.6 KB
  • prompts/stumbles.md1.3 KB
  • references/context-safety.md990 B
  • references/github-issues.md1.6 KB
  • references/redaction-policy.md2.2 KB
  • references/session-discovery.md1.8 KB
  • templates/bundle-README.md3.6 KB
  • templates/case.md2.9 KB
  • templates/issue.md1.8 KB
  • templates/report.md2.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Diagnosing Superpowers

Overview

Pin down with your human partner what went wrong in a session, read the transcripts on disk, and report what happened with evidence. You report; you do not diagnose superpowers. Whoever triages the bundle or the issue decides whether superpowers changes.

Core principle: Every finding cites path:line. No citation, no finding. Every number comes from the transcript or from a command you ran, never from memory.

Workflow

Create a todo per step. Steps 5–7 run only on their stated condition.

  1. Problem intake. Ask one question at a time until you can write a statement naming the session(s), the turn range if known, what your partner expected, what happened, and the observable they care about (wall-clock, tokens, repeated actions, one specific action). "It took too long" is a complaint, not a problem statement. Note whether the goal is a superpowers bug report.
  2. Locate. Resolve each session to verified absolute filesystem paths using references/session-discovery.md. Confirm a past session by quoting its first prompt and timestamp, and list every candidate you rejected with the reason, or "none". Enumerate subagent transcripts. Create ~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/<session-id>/, tell your partner the path, and fill templates/case.md there, following its provenance rules for environment and skill observations.
  3. Triage. Read the region around the reported problem yourself. Then dispatch one analyst subagent per dimension in parallel, each given the case file path, prompts/analyst-common.md, and one dimension file from prompts/: skill-timeline.md, plan-adherence.md, repeated-work.md, stumbles.md, quality-evidence.md, request-conflicts.md, cost-and-time.md. Split a dimension by turn range when the transcript is long. Discard any returned finding without path:line.
  4. Report. Fill every section of templates/report.md in order, write it to the workspace, show it, and give the path. Check what cited content actually proves and preserve the supporting case; a symlink alias is not a redundant copy.
  5. GitHub issues — when report §7 says possible or likely, or your partner asks. Search open and closed issues for the symptoms per references/github-issues.md. Show matches and suggest adding the report to the closest. If none match, fill templates/issue.md, write it to the workspace, show the exact text, and create the issue only after approval. gh cannot attach files; if a bundle exists, give your partner its path to attach in the browser.
  6. Export — only when your partner asks for a bundle; never build one unprompted. If the intake goal was a bug report, say once that a scrubbed bundle is available on request, then wait. Ask the redaction level, stating what each includes: skeleton (no tool-result bodies), evidence (bodies only for cited events), full. Build the bundle per templates/bundle-README.md, dispatch prompts/scrub.md, then prompts/scrub-audit.md, repeating both until the audit returns CLEAN. Complete the bundle template's evidence check and reconciliation before showing the final scrub log, file list, and privacy and evidence outcomes. Archive (zip -r or tar -czf) only after approval. With the archive path, state what it contains, point at the scrub log for replacements, and say scrubbing can miss things: they must review every file before sharing.
  7. Similar sessions — when asked. Turn confirmed findings into a signature, list candidates by mtime and size, find marker line numbers, dispatch prompts/similar-session.md per candidate in parallel, and append report §9.

Quick reference

All seven analysts always run. This table says which region to read yourself in step 3 and which findings to lead with in the verdict.

ComplaintRead first, lead with
"It took too long"cost-and-time, stumbles
"Why did it do this extra work?"repeated-work, plan-adherence
"Why is it so expensive?"cost-and-time
"What the hell is it doing?" (still running)skill-timeline; note in-progress in coverage
"It ignored the plan"plan-adherence, compaction lines first
"Skill X never fired"skill-timeline

Hard rules

  • Context safety. One transcript line can be a megabyte. Follow references/context-safety.md on every session file, every time.
  • Read-only. Never modify, move, or delete a session file.
  • Exact paths to subagents. A subagent's "current session" is its own. Pass absolute paths and ids.
  • Human prompts only. Hook output, system reminders, and tool results are not your partner's words. In a subagent transcript, "user" is the parent agent.
  • No superpowers diagnosis. Report §7 states involvement and stops. Never name a defect in a skill or propose a change. Your partner pressing for a fix does not waive this; point at the issue step and mention that a bundle is available on request. No advice to your partner either.
  • Approval gates. No archive before your partner has seen the scrub log and file list. No issue or comment before they approve the exact text.
  • Intake before analysis. Nothing in steps 2–7 starts until your partner has answered. If they are away, write the questions and stop. A statement you reconstructed for them is not an answer. An already-scoped request — one specific event, what is running now, or the analysis to run — is itself the statement: answer it, then ask. A whole-session "why" is a complaint.

Red Flags

ThoughtReality
"The problem is obvious, skip intake"The problem statement scopes everything. Ask.
"They're away, so I'll reconstruct the statement"You cannot reconstruct what they wanted. Write the questions and stop.
"I'll sweep everything now and ask at the end"An unscoped sweep spends their budget on the wrong question. Ask first.
"They want a bug report, so I'll build the bundle now"The bundle is their session data, packaged. Build it only when they ask for it.
"Small, targeted edit, no restructuring needed"Not your call, however small. Report the evidence; the triager decides.
"The price per token is well known"Numbers you did not compute from the transcript are invented. Cite or drop.

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

brainstorming

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

在开始新功能或项目之前,通过对话明确目的、偏好和限制。根据需要用图示或原型核对理解,并按工作规模整理说明或设计文档。

  • 明确新功能的目的
  • 整理演讲或商业构想
  • 比较界面或房间布局
obra/superpowers30.2万2026年10月10日 更新

dispatching-parallel-agents

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

将相互独立的缺陷或测试失败分配给不同代理,并行调查和修复。明确各自范围与报告要求,再检查修改冲突、运行完整测试并整合结果。

  • 调查原因互不相关的测试失败
  • 修复不同功能中的独立缺陷
  • 明确多个代理的工作范围
obra/superpowers30.2万2026年10月10日 更新

executing-plans

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

在同一会话中逐项执行已有的实施计划,确认测试先失败后通过,记录进度与判断,并在全部任务结束后审查整个分支的更改。

  • 执行已有的开发计划
  • 不另派实施代理完成工作
  • 根据进度记录恢复任务
obra/superpowers30.2万2026年10月10日 更新

finishing-a-development-branch

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

在实现完成后检查全部测试,让用户选择本地合并、创建拉取请求或保留现状,并执行所选操作,再根据选择和工作环境整理分支与工作区。

  • 在本地合并已完成的功能
  • 推送分支并创建拉取请求
  • 保留已完成的修改以便日后整合
obra/superpowers30.2万2026年10月10日 更新

receiving-code-review

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

将代码审查意见与实际代码、支持的运行环境及现有行为进行核对,确认建议是否合理,梳理疑问并依据技术证据回复,再逐项修改和测试。

  • 梳理含糊的代码审查意见
  • 核实建议修改的兼容性
  • 检查拟扩展的功能是否实际使用
obra/superpowers30.2万2026年10月10日 更新

requesting-code-review

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

在功能实现后或合并前,请另一个智能体审查代码。整理修改内容、需求和目标提交范围,再根据审查意见的严重程度推进修复。

  • 大型功能实现后的代码审查
  • 合并前检查修改
  • 为复杂问题修复寻求独立审查
obra/superpowers30.2万2026年10月10日 更新

查看 obra 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题