跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

thinking-out-loud

将语音输入或长篇随想整理为目标、决定和待解问题,同时保留中途改变的方向与暂缓话题。单独列出智能体的推测,在开始工作前确认理解。

原文查看原文说明

A contract for what the agent does when a long, messy, stream-of-consciousness ramble arrives (usually voice dictation): act on nothing until the echo brief is approved. The echo audits the entire transfer, mission, locked decisions and constraints, open questions, flips and parked tangents, with the model's inferences and guesses quarantined away from the user's own phrasing, so the user verifies what the model believes, not just what it doubts. Use when the user says "let me think out loud" or wants to ramble a bit before building anything, when a message opens with a speech-to-text preamble like "switching to voice, sorry for typos", when input is a long weakly punctuated stream with restarts and mid-message reversals ("actually no, wait, scrap that idea entirely"), or when the user asks to be interviewed about a fuzzy half-formed idea. Includes an optional capture mode for rambles spread across several messages and an optional targeted interview.

AI 评分100分/ 100查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 整理通过语音表达的构想
  • 开始工作前确认需求理解
  • 收集跨多条消息的想法
  • 通过提问理清模糊构想

中文介绍

功能

thinking-out-loud 将语音输入或想到哪里说到哪里的长篇说明,整理成开始工作前可核对的简短摘要。摘要分别列出目标、已定事项与限制、待解问题、中途改变的方向,以及暂缓讨论的话题。智能体补充的解释和推测会单独列出,便于检查是否混入了自己没有说过的前提。在用户认可摘要之前,不会开始实现或编写解决方案。

适用场景

适合在构想尚未成形时边说边想,或确认智能体如何理解一段长篇说明。想法分散在多条消息中时,也可以等用户发出结束信号后再统一整理。根据用户意愿,还能针对未解决的问题和推测逐一提问,最多五问。

使用示例

  • “我会用语音讲述想法,结束后请把决定和你的推测分开整理。”
  • “开始制作前,让我确认你如何理解刚才的说明。”
  • “请通过提问,帮我理清这个还不明确的构想。”

注意事项

不适用于逐字转写、会议记录或简短明确的请求。保存摘要需要用户确认,可选择追加到 CLAUDE.md、保存为带日期的文件,或仅保留在对话中。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良好明确以语音输入和长篇随想为使用场景,并要求摘要获批后才开始工作。
步骤具体性步骤、输入输出和示例是否具体
A良好规定了摘要的五个部分、最多五次提问和三种保存选项。
安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
A良好禁止在批准前编辑文件,保存摘要也需要用户确认。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
A良好流程主要在对话中完成,未要求额外工具或 API 密钥。

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.md7.3 KB
  • README.md2.8 KB
  • references/echo-format.md2.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Thinking Out Loud

A ten minute voice ramble transfers more context than any prompt a person would type, and models reconstruct rambles well. The failure is downstream and invisible: the model fills every gap in the ramble confidently. "The usual model" silently becomes a specific model. "The standard size" becomes a specific viewport. A position the user reversed mid-ramble survives as fact. None of this registers as uncertainty from the inside, so none of it ever becomes a clarifying question. The model then acts on a misreading it fully believes, and the user discovers it an hour of generated work later.

This skill is the fix: before acting on any ramble, produce an echo, a short structured audit of everything absorbed, with the model's own additions quarantined from the user's words. The user corrects three lines instead of debugging a built artifact.

Why an echo instead of follow-up questions

Asking clarifying questions is good, and the interview below does it. But questions alone cannot secure a ramble, for two structural reasons:

  • Questions verify what the model doubts. The echo verifies what the model believes. A clarifying question requires felt uncertainty, and confident misreadings feel like knowledge. The echo forces every inference and gap-fill into the open whether or not it felt uncertain.
  • Questions sample; the echo audits. A long ramble carries dozens of facts and half-decisions. Even good questions probe three or four; the rest of the model's understanding goes unverified into action. The echo inventories the entire transfer, and it works by recognition, not recall: the user reads and spots what is wrong, which is far cheaper than producing answers, and ramblers often do not know their answer until they see the wrong guess written down.

The contract

  1. Act on nothing. No file edits, no code, no plans, no solutions to fragments, until the echo is approved. Reconstruct first.
  2. Label every addition. Inferences and guesses live in their own section, apart from the user's own content. Never present a guess in the user's voice.
  3. Surface every reversal. Adopt the later position, but flag the flip. Never silently average or pick.
  4. Lose nothing. Tangents get parked, not dropped.
  5. Never remark on dictation artifacts. Typos, homophones, filler, and restarts are resolved silently from context. Keep the user's own vocabulary and project names.
  6. Ask before persisting. The approved brief is offered a home, never saved unprompted.

When to use

  • A message is a long, weakly punctuated stream of consciousness with restarts, filler, and mid-message reversals ("actually no, scrap that")
  • A message opens with a voice preamble ("switching to speech recognition, sorry for any typos", "dictating this")
  • The user says they want to ramble or think out loud
  • The user asks to be interviewed to untangle a fuzzy idea

When not to use

  • Short requests that are already clear
  • The user wants a verbatim transcript, minutes, or cleanup of dictation while keeping their exact words
  • Long but already structured text, such as a pasted spec or document
  • The user asked a direct question and wants a direct answer

The echo

One structured reply. Dense, scannable, and short: the user should find and fix an error in seconds. Full template with a worked example in references/echo-format.md.

  1. Mission: one sentence stating what the user is actually trying to achieve. Often this differs from what they said first; that is fine.
  2. Locked: the user's decisions and constraints, merged into one list. Mark anything they called a top priority.
  3. Open: questions the ramble raised but did not answer.
  4. Ledger: flips (both positions in one line, later one adopted) and parked tangents (one line each).
  5. My additions: the only interpretation callouts. "Inferred" (strongly implied but never stated) and "Guessed" (gaps you filled). Tell the user to correct these first.

Compression rules, non-negotiable:

  • Nothing appears twice. Every fact lives in exactly one section.
  • No "you said" recap. Everything outside My additions is the user's own content by definition; only the model's additions get called out.
  • One line per bullet. If a bullet needs two lines, it is two bullets or it is bloat.
  • Vague quantifiers are never silently resolved. "The usual model", "standard size", "soon": each lands in Open or Guessed, never absorbed into a locked item as if it were specified.

Close by inviting corrections and offering the interview.

The interview (optional)

Follow-up questions have their place: after the audit, not instead of it. Only if the user accepts the offer, or asked to be interviewed up front.

  • Ask only about items flagged in Open or Guessed
  • One question per message, highest information gain first
  • Each question states in one clause why it matters
  • Cap at five questions; stop early once answers stop changing the brief
  • After the interview, restate only the sections of the echo that changed

Capture mode (multi-message rambles)

Not needed for dictation tools, where the whole ramble arrives as one message. Use it when the user invokes the skill before rambling and then adds thoughts across several messages, possibly over a long stretch.

  • Acknowledge once, in one short line ("Go ahead, I'm listening. Say 'done' when you want the echo.")
  • For every following message, reply with a single minimal line ("Listening."). Vary it slightly so it does not feel robotic.
  • Do NOT solve, praise, summarize, analyze, or ask questions mid-stream.
  • If the user asks a direct question mid-ramble, answer it in at most two sentences, then return to listening.
  • Exit on "done", "echo", "echo me", "that's it", "what did you get", or any clear equivalent, then deliver the echo.

Persistence

After the user approves the echo, offer exactly three options:

  1. Append the brief to CLAUDE.md so future sessions inherit it
  2. Save it to docs/rambles/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md
  3. Keep it in-conversation only

The approved brief then governs the rest of the session: honor its decisions and constraints without re-asking.

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

advisor-orchestrator-worker

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

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。

  • 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
Shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps14.3万2026年10月22日 更新

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22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22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22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22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22日 更新

查看 Shubhamsaboo 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题