跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

advisor-orchestrator-worker

将大型调研或生成任务分配给多个AI模型,完成计划评审、并行执行、成果验证与整合,并记录各负责角色的进度和重试情况。

原文查看原文说明

Use when a task is too large for one model pass, needs parallel research or generation across many subtasks (like researching a dozen competitors at once), or the user asks to orchestrate multiple models, split work across a model team, run an advisor-worker loop, have a stronger model review the plan while cheap workers execute, or says "too big for one model" or "fan this out". Not for single-file edits or tasks one model handles in one pass.

集成工具Gemini
AI 评分80分/ 100查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 并行调研多个竞争对手
  • 分担大型内容生成任务
  • 让顾问评审计划或草稿
  • 管理各子任务的验证结果和重试

中文介绍

功能

advisor-orchestrator-worker将大型任务分为协调者、执行者和顾问三个层次。协调者确定成果和验收标准,拆分独立子任务并安排并行执行。顾问评审计划及整合后的草稿,执行者的成果则按验收标准逐一验证。不合格的任务会附上具体问题重新分派,成果之间的矛盾也会明确解决。

适用场景

适合一次模型调用难以完成的调研或生成任务,例如同时调查多家竞争对手。它记录各负责角色的进度、执行途径和重试情况,并设置预算上限。单文件编辑或一次即可完成的任务不在适用范围内。

使用示例

  • “分工调研12家竞争对手,验证成果后汇总比较结果。”
  • “先让顾问评审计划,再并行开展生成任务。”

注意事项

需要可执行命令的环境、bash、jq及网络连接。执行者使用agy,顾问使用claude CLI;备用API需要相应的API密钥。通过API运行的执行者无法使用工具。CLI使用独立临时目录并不等于沙箱隔离。许可证为Apache-2.0。

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良好明确说明大型任务的适用场景、协调者与执行者及顾问的职责,并列出排除任务。
步骤具体性步骤、输入输出和示例是否具体
A良好具体说明七步流程、CLI执行示例、验证判定、重试上限及最终成果。
安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
B部分不足agy示例跳过权限确认,虽说明不是沙箱,但未限定执行者的操作范围。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足列出bash、jq、各CLI和备用API密钥,但未提供工具安装步骤。

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(6)

  • SKILL.md7.1 KB
  • advisor_skill.jpeg416.6 KB
  • README.md4.2 KB
  • references/advisor-consult.md1.3 KB
  • references/fallbacks.md1.8 KB
  • references/worker-brief.md1.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Advisor Orchestrator Worker

You are the Orchestrator of a three-tier model team. You own the hot path: plan, delegate, verify, synthesize. You never do worker-level work yourself, and you never execute through the advisor.

Models are knobs. The tiers are the durable part; the model IDs below (current July 2026) swap freely. One rule survives every generation: the advisor is the strongest reasoning model you can reach, workers the cheapest that pass verification. Snippets are bash; on another shell, run them with bash -c.

The team

  • Workers (default: Gemini 3.8 Flash via the Antigravity CLI, agy): stateless generation units, with tools (web search, file work) when a subtask needs them. Never interpolate a brief into a shell string; briefs carry quotes and arbitrary text, so that is a shell-injection bug. Write each brief to a temp file and dispatch each worker from its own EMPTY temp dir (no .antigravity.md or project context leaks in), in its own subshell, into its own output file:

    # $brief = this worker's brief file; $out = its result file (absolute path)
    d=$(mktemp -d)
    ( cd "$d" && env -i HOME="$HOME" PATH="$PATH" \
        agy --dangerously-skip-permissions --model "gemini-3.8-flash" --effort high \
        --print-timeout 5m -p "$(cat "$brief")" \
        > "$out"; s=$?; rm -rf "$d"; exit "$s" ) &
    pids+=($!)
    

    The permissions flag is required in non-TTY shells or the call hangs; the empty dir + minimal env reduce leakage but are not a sandbox; the --model pin keeps primary and fallback on one model, and --effort high satisfies the CLI's required effort selection. Chunk every wave into batches of 3 (Antigravity quota is shared across its app, CLI, and SDK). Start each batch with pids=(), reap each worker with its own wait "$pid" (a collective wait reports only the last status), and read each $out in dispatch order, since a shared stdout hands verify interleaved output. Non-zero exit or an empty $out is a failed dispatch: retry it through the Gemini API fallback in references/fallbacks.md when a key is set (no key: ESCALATE), and record the switch on the status board. That fallback also takes over when agy is missing, and carries any brief too large (over ~100 KB) or too untrusted for a CLI argument (agy -p has no prompt-file input). API workers run uncapped in parallel but have no tools, so a subtask that needs tools goes through agy or gets ESCALATE. Clean up all temp files at run end.

  • Advisor (default: Claude Fable 5.1 via the claude CLI): consult written to a temp file, passed on stdin (never inline in the command), behind a timeout so a hung consult can't stall the loop (perl's alarm; timeout(1) is missing on stock macOS): perl -e 'alarm shift; exec @ARGV' 300 claude --model claude-fable-5-1 -p < "$consult". Expensive judgment kept out of the hot path: strategy, decomposition critique, risk, taste. Never execution. If the CLI is missing or a consult fails, use the Anthropic API fallback in references/fallbacks.md.

The loop

  1. Frame. State the deliverable and 3 to 5 checkable success criteria; if the task is too vague for that, ask one question and stop. Check tools now, not mid-run: agy, jq, the claude CLI, ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, and api_key="${GEMINI_API_KEY:-$GOOGLE_API_KEY}". Each role resolves CLI first, then API key; announce every fallback up front. If a role has no working path, say exactly how to set it up, then offer degraded mode: you temporarily play that role yourself, same budgets, every affected section and the final result labeled [DEGRADED: <role>], context-isolation caveat noted. Degraded mode is the one exception to the never-do-worker-work rule and covers at most one role; with two or more missing there is no team left, so say so and proceed as ordinary single-model work.
  2. Plan. Decompose into self-contained subtasks with inline inputs, acceptance criteria, and wave assignments that maximize parallelism.
  3. Plan review (mandatory advisor consult #1). Send the plan using the format in references/advisor-consult.md. Revise. State what you changed and what you rejected.
  4. Delegate. Dispatch each wave using the format in references/worker-brief.md. Parallel background calls, then wait.
  5. Verify. Check every result against its own acceptance criteria, and make the check exercise the deliverable itself: run the actual command, read the actual output. Grepping a README, testing something adjacent, printing True while exiting zero, or re-checking that a file exists proves nothing. Verdict per result: PASS, FIX (redispatch naming the specific failure), or ESCALATE. Never silently accept a partial pass; never hand-patch a substantive failure; redispatch instead.
  6. Synthesize. When all subtasks pass, assemble the deliverable. Resolve conflicts between worker outputs explicitly, never by averaging.
  7. Taste pass (mandatory advisor consult #2). Send the draft to the advisor for taste and risk review. Apply or rebut each note.

Commitment boundaries (when to escalate to the advisor mid-loop)

  • Two worker results contradict each other beyond the provided context
  • A subtask fails verification twice
  • A judgment call falls outside the success criteria
  • The plan must change structurally mid-run

Budget: set one at the frame step, sized to the plan, and state it alongside the success criteria. A reasonable shape is twice the subtask count in worker dispatches (retries and fallback redispatches count) plus 5 advisor consults, 2 of which are the mandatory reviews. The cap is not the point; the rule is that spending past it is never silent. If the budget runs out, stop and report, or tell the user what more would cost and let them decide.

Finish

Stop at a verified deliverable, an exhausted budget, or a blocker that needs the user. Return: the deliverable, the plan, a verification ledger per subtask, advisor notes applied and rejected, and remaining risks. Print a one-line status board after each loop step: per subtask, its state (PENDING / DISPATCHED / PASS / FIX / ESCALATED), dispatch path, and retries, e.g. W2: FIX → PASS | agy→api | 1 retry.

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

chatgpt-app-builder

免费有简介AI 评分 70分

指导开发可在ChatGPT内操作的应用,涵盖功能规划、React组件及状态共享的实现。该技能已弃用,并指引用户转向后续技能。

  • 梳理ChatGPT应用功能
  • 实现与服务器联动的界面
  • 与ChatGPT共享界面状态
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月19日 更新

commit-archaeologist

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

通过本地Git历史调查代码的引入背景与修改意图,追溯最初提交及反复同时修改的文件,整理改动前需要检查的事项。

  • 了解陌生函数存在的原因
  • 改动前检查历史约束
  • 调查临时变通方案为何仍被保留
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月19日 更新

dependency-doctor

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

检查Python和JavaScript依赖文件中的版本约束缺失、重复条目、固定版本冲突及过时兼容包,用易懂的语言说明影响并提出便于核对的修改建议。

  • 安装失败深入排查前的初步检查
  • 检查过时的Python兼容包
  • 检查重复条目和固定版本冲突
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月19日 更新

first-reader

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

从目标读者的角度试读发布前的文稿,检查是否愿意打开、在哪里失去兴趣,以及读后记住什么。它报告模拟读者的反应,不改写文章。

  • 检查帖子是否会被读完
  • 找出读者停止阅读的位置
  • 比较修改前后的读者反应
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月19日 更新

mcp-apps-builder

免费有简介AI 评分 70分

使用mcp-use设计和实现MCP服务器,让AI调用外部操作与数据。指南涵盖认证、交互界面、错误处理及部署,并引导查阅各功能的配套资料。

  • 新建MCP服务器
  • 添加操作、数据及可复用提示词
  • 构建浏览与选择数据的React界面
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月19日 更新

mcp-builder

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

这是使用mcp-use设计MCP服务器操作、数据资源、可复用提示词及交互界面的旧指南。该技能已弃用,并指引用户迁移至mcp-app-builder。

  • 理解现有mcp-use服务器结构
  • 查阅Tool、Resource和Prompt示例
  • 查看交互式Widget设计
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月19日 更新

查看 Shubhamsaboo 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题