跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

maintain-verification-skill

对照源代码和实际运行情况,检查项目的验证技能及功能与智能体访问路径对应表。修正步骤和引用偏差,并列明尚未验证的范围、访问权限缺口与缺失的前提条件。

原文查看原文说明

Keep a project's verification skill and product/agent access maps aligned with current source and real evidence. Use for /maintain-verification-skill, auditing the verify skill, or reconciling feature and agent access coverage.

AI 评分90分/ 100查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 应用变更后更新验证步骤
  • 核对功能与智能体访问权限
  • 区分源码检查与实际运行证据
  • 整理访问缺口和验证前提

中文介绍

功能

检查项目已有的验证技能,以及整理功能和智能体访问路径的对应表。通过查看源代码和实际运行情况,修正步骤偏差、失效引用和缺失的对应条目。分别记录源码检查、单项操作检查与实际运行取得的证据,并报告仍然存在的缺口。

适用场景

适合在应用变更后,检查验证步骤是否已经过时。也可用于确认用户能够使用的功能,智能体是否能通过获准的路径执行。支持限定范围的审查,并将已检查的部分与尚未实际运行的部分分别说明。

使用示例

  • “请用/maintain-verification-skill检查现有的验证技能。”
  • “请核对已修改功能的验证步骤和智能体访问路径。”
  • “请整理未能执行的验证,以及执行所需的前提条件。”

注意事项

目标项目必须已有验证技能。确认实际行为时,需要满足该技能规定的启动环境、身份验证等前提。修改范围限于验证技能、对应表及相关结构检查,不会修改产品API、权限控制或界面行为。仅检查源代码,不能将实际行为标记为已验证。

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良好明确以维护验证技能和对应表为目的,并定义审查范围及三种结果。
步骤具体性步骤、输入输出和示例是否具体
A良好具体规定从定位目标到复核修正的步骤、配对标识及运行证据的处理方式。
安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
A良好禁止修改产品和权限,要求变更测试使用临时测试资源,并规定清理步骤。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足需要已有验证技能和运行环境,启动及身份验证细节由目标技能规定。

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20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(3)

  • SKILL.md7.7 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml43 B
  • NOTICE.md2.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Maintain a verification skill and its maps

Keep user journeys and agent access aligned with the app. For Paperclip, read the map contract, the feature index, and the agent access index. These are sibling maps under maps/, with the same area filenames and capability IDs. Preserve Poteto's product format. Agent companions follow the shared contract; they do not duplicate user recipes.

An API endpoint, an OpenAPI actor label, a declared scenario tool and an admitted production agent path are different evidence. Verify which permitted agent surface can actually express an operation. Track source review, operation review and executed proof separately. A source-only baseline is useful, but cannot certify complete coverage or live behavior.

Outcomes

Pick one and report source scope, live scope and remaining gaps separately:

  • clean — the requested scope got source and live coverage, with no corrections.
  • changed — proven skill/map/check corrections are ready to review; name any access gaps or unexecuted coverage that remains.
  • blocked — requested coverage or a proven correction could not finish; name the unmet prerequisite and evidence captured so far.

A targeted audit covers its named areas; do not present it as a full pass. A full pass reads every area from source and exercises every reachable feature, plus relevant permitted-agent and denial paths. Report unreachable prerequisites and not-run operations rather than silently reducing the scope.

Edit scope

For Paperclip, edit the target verification skill, these maintenance instructions when needed, maps/, and the map-specific structural check scripts/check-maps.mjs / scripts/check-maps.test.mjs. Fix references to those maps in contributor docs or skill instructions when their locations/IDs change. Keep the maps in maps/{feature-map,agent-access-map}/, outside skill directories.

For other projects, maintain their existing verification skill and map locations; the Paperclip directory convention does not authorize relocating another repo. Never edit product APIs, permission enforcement, tool bindings or UI behavior in a maintenance run. Record product/access gaps for implementation separately; a permission denial is not authorization to widen access.

Pass

  1. Locate the target and scope. Find the project-local verification skill (usually .agents/skills/verify-*/). Several candidates: ask which; none: point to /create-verification-skill. Honor a requested narrower audit. Use Git diff/history to identify affected sources. Record the source revision and review evidence in the PR or evidence report, not a shared map ledger.

  2. Check both indexes. Pair same-named feature and agent files, then match stable sub-feature IDs. Fix orphan/missing entries and broken references. For Paperclip run node scripts/check-maps.mjs. This checks structure, not API authorization, real tool bindings or live behavior.

  3. Source wave. Use read-only subagents per area, with each reader owning the feature file and its access companion; schedule within available slots. Readers never edit or drive the app. Each returns the user capability/source entry points, likely drift with citations, meaningful operations, their APIs, actor/grant/resource/run/mode boundaries, real agent entry points by surface, missing access/discovery/policy decisions, and a concise verification recipe. Follow recent changes to routes, contracts, authorization, native tool admission, CLI and MCP as well as UI. Inspect actual route/service policy; compare it with OpenAPI and production bindings, not only scenario catalogs.

  4. Reconcile both maps. Spot-check cited drift and merge recipes into as few app states as practical. Every affected business operation needs an API and a permitted agent path, or an explicit gap. A dedicated tool is optional when existing API/CLI/MCP fallback suffices. Distinguish native/remote access from legacy REST and personal assistant OAuth. Record field/scope limits, unavailable clients, protocol requirements and native fallback restrictions. Keep justified local/developer/operator exceptions, but split shared data operations from presentation. A board-only route records a restriction and any existing request/result handoff; an unresolved delegation question stays visible. Split broad baselines into per-operation records before marking them operation-reviewed. Add newly discovered capabilities only with concrete source; add their companion at the same time. Each feature recipe carries its own navigation metadata. Discovery generates the feature and access indexes; do not register new areas in shared READMEs or commit generated output. Keep durable Storybook verification routes in the affected feature recipe.

  5. Live pass. Required for a verification maintenance pass even if source looks clean. The coordinator owns serial driving, using the target skill's existing launch/doctor/evidence/cleanup workflow and Paperclip's existing API/runner/MCP fixtures. Exercise the real user path and the relevant actual agent path separately. For access checks use the permitted agent identity, run, mode and target; assert results and relevant denials. A board request or board test-as-agent does not replace agent-credential proof. Use disposable fixtures for mutation/denial tests and record simulated providers honestly. Never assume an optional client is admitted to a native run.

    Keep three invariants: health-check before driving and after surprises; verify captured evidence survives cleanup; clean up everything the drive owned once no longer needed. Reset a wedged UI even if process health passes. Follow the target skill's session model: one long-lived owned server/UI instance, or isolated short-lived CLI sessions. After a skill-induced failure, fix within edit scope and retry once, restarting only what was invalidated. Record missing auth/provider/environment prerequisites and attempted paths. Re-drive changed harness helpers before shipping them. Final teardown follows the last proof attempt and preserves evidence.

  6. Triage and record. User description/recipe drift updates the product map; endpoint/path/permission/discovery drift updates its companion. Missing or broken product behavior stays a product gap, with evidence. Never rewrite a recipe or mark an access exception to bless a failure. Map evidence states remain source-only/not-run unless an actual proof supports the named operation and surface. Keep run artifacts/results in the evidence location or issue; the generated maps/generated/coverage.json is a page-reference inventory, not passing test evidence.

  7. Review corrections. Re-read changed files, check paired IDs/references and run the smallest relevant validation. Report outcome and source/live coverage honestly. If shipping is requested or already authorized, update the existing task PR where appropriate, or create at most one PR of proven corrections. A clean pass needs no branch or PR. Do not implement access-policy changes merely to make the maintenance report green.

Keep concise run notes and proof artifacts in the target skill's named evidence location; do not commit ephemeral run logs as map content.

Origin and license: NOTICE.md.

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

add-product-e2e-eval

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

为Paperclip新增或扩展贯穿真实浏览器、服务器、数据库和runner的端到端评估,整理测试数据、判定条件与证据,并在现有报告中查看操作结果。

  • 新增完整用户操作流程的评估
  • 更新测试数据与判定条件
  • 在评估报告中加入截图和产物
paperclipai/paperclip10.6万2026年10月22日 更新

add-runner-eval

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

为Paperclip Runner添加或扩展行为评估,定义判定条件、执行目标和报告验证数据,利用正常及异常证据验证结果,并保留执行记录与费用。

  • 添加Runner行为评估
  • 用有效与无效证据检验判定
  • 更新执行列表和持续评估
paperclipai/paperclip10.6万2026年10月22日 更新

agent-browser

免费有简介AI 评分 90分

通过实际浏览器操作网页和应用,检查界面显示与运行情况。结合截图、简单表单填写、错误及网络请求记录,帮助复现问题并确认操作结果。

  • 检查界面修改后的显示效果
  • 读取由JavaScript渲染的内容
  • 复现界面问题并记录错误
paperclipai/paperclip10.6万2026年10月22日 更新

agentmail

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

通过 Paperclip 分配的 AgentMail 收件箱,查看任务关联邮件、发送新邮件或回复,并核查投递结果;重试时保留相同标识,避免重复发送。

  • 查看所负责任务关联的邮件
  • 从分配的收件箱发送新邮件
  • 回复会话中的指定邮件
paperclipai/paperclip10.6万2026年10月22日 更新

check-pr

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

检查GitHub、GitLab和Perforce变更中的评审意见、自动检查失败及说明缺漏,整理待办事项,并按请求协助修改和解决已处理的讨论。

  • 提交变更前进行检查
  • 确认失败的检查和待修改项
  • 整理人工及机器人评审意见
paperclipai/paperclip10.6万2026年10月22日 更新

company-creator

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

根据构想或现有代码仓库,梳理AI智能体的职责、汇报关系与工作交接,生成符合规范的公司或团队文件包,供组织协作和导入Paperclip使用。

  • 从构想建立智能体公司
  • 将代码仓库整理为团队
  • 设计职责分工与工作交接
paperclipai/paperclip10.6万2026年10月22日 更新

查看 paperclipai 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题