跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

skill-discovery

How agents discover and use skills. Use to understand skill invocation protocol.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(10)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB
  • commands/skill-discovery.md115 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs308 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs425 B
  • references/research-requirements.md361 B
  • rules/skill-discovery.md345 B
  • schemas/input.schema.json550 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json259 B
  • scripts/main.cjs1.1 KB
  • templates/implementation-template.md189 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT> If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke the skill.

IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.

This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this. </EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>

How to Access Skills

In Claude Code: Use the Skill tool or read skill files directly. When you invoke a skill, its content is loaded and presented to you - follow it directly.

In other environments: Check your platform's documentation for how skills are loaded.

Using Framework Skills

The Rule

Invoke relevant or requested skills BEFORE any response or action. Even a 1% chance a skill might apply means that you should invoke the skill to check. If an invoked skill turns out to be wrong for the situation, you don't need to use it.

digraph skill_flow {
    "User message received" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke Skill tool" [shape=box];
    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box];
    "Has checklist?" [shape=diamond];
    "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [shape=box];
    "Follow skill exactly" [shape=box];
    "Respond (including clarifications)" [shape=doublecircle];

    "User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?";
    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke Skill tool" [label="yes, even 1%"];
    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"];
    "Invoke Skill tool" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?";
    "Has checklist?" -> "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [label="yes"];
    "Has checklist?" -> "Follow skill exactly" [label="no"];
    "Create TodoWrite todo per item" -> "Follow skill exactly";
}

Red Flags

These thoughts mean STOP - you're rationalizing:

ThoughtReality
"This is just a simple question"Questions are tasks. Check for skills.
"I need more context first"Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions.
"Let me explore the codebase first"Skills tell you HOW to explore. Check first.
"I can check git/files quickly"Files lack conversation context. Check for skills.
"Let me gather information first"Skills tell you HOW to gather information.
"This doesn't need a formal skill"If a skill exists, use it.
"I remember this skill"Skills evolve. Read current version.
"This doesn't count as a task"Action = task. Check for skills.
"The skill is overkill"Simple things become complex. Use it.
"I'll just do this one thing first"Check BEFORE doing anything.
"This feels productive"Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this.
"I know what that means"Knowing the concept != using the skill. Invoke it.

Skill Priority

When multiple skills could apply, use this order:

  1. Process skills first (brainstorming, debugging) - these determine HOW to approach the task
  2. Implementation skills second (frontend-design, mcp-builder) - these guide execution

"Let's build X" -> brainstorming first, then implementation skills. "Fix this bug" -> debugging first, then domain-specific skills.

Skill Types

Rigid (TDD, debugging): Follow exactly. Don't adapt away discipline.

Flexible (patterns): Adapt principles to context.

The skill itself tells you which.

User Instructions

Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows.

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting: Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing:

  • New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
  • Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
  • Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

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

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

查看 oimiragieo 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题