跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

perfection-review

Adversarial "perfection" review — hold a change to an *ideal* bar, not just a correct one, assuming eternal time, unlimited energy, and no ship pressure. Use when the user asks to review "for perfection", to make a defect "impossible to express", or to hunt where a defect "relocates" across review rounds. Grounds every claim in the diff, fans out adversarial verifiers via Workflow, and reports residual surfaces with a structural fix for each. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly asks for a perfection / ideal-bar review.

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(1)

  • SKILL.md3.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Perfection review

The bar is not "closed" but "the defect can no longer be expressed." Assume eternal time, unlimited energy, no deadline. "Overridable", "acceptable for scope", and "documented intent" are still holes.

Most defects are one shape in costumes. Name the shape, then hunt where it relocates — a fix that satisfies the literal ask but lets the defect resurface one seam over is not done. Track it across rounds until it has nowhere left to go.

Method

  1. Ground in the diff, not the story — the PR body, commit messages, docs, and the author's claims are assertions to falsify, not facts. Check them against the code.
  2. Letter vs effect — a safety added but never exercised is inert. Require a real path that uses it and a test that fails when it is removed.
  3. Unspellable > absent — make the wrong thing impossible to write, not merely discouraged. If a future author can still spell the defect, it isn't closed. Beware a guarantee that proves presence, not behaviour.
  4. Reconcile claim and code — an overclaiming comment or doc is itself a defect: make the code earn the sentence, or soften the sentence.
  5. Finish the blast radius — not done until every dependent and downstream is carried to the same bar and verified against the final state.

Verify adversarially — use Workflow

Review with fresh context, separate from the author — a reviewer carrying the author's context rationalizes the author's intent; a fresh mind grounded only in the diff does not. Fan out grounded verifiers (one per claim) plus an adversary whose only job is to express the defect anyway, each citing the diff; then synthesize. Default to refuted-if-uncertain, loop until nothing new surfaces, and re-verify the headline finding yourself. Keep agent schemas flat and isolate the adversary so one failure can't abort the run.

Report

Lead with credit for what's closed — don't move goalposts on done work — then the residual surfaces, ranked, each with its structural fix. Frame each finding as the invariant it violates, not a lone exploit: a single proof-of-concept trains a one-line patch and the defect just relocates — give the property, and if you must show an example, give a few from different angles and call it one costume of many. Separate "the product is fine" from "the claim isn't yet true". Post to the PR only when asked (--post).

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

be

免费

Modern, interactive alternative to `/do` — clarify intent up front, then take a task end-to-end with a serial AI review gauntlet (lens debate (lowy ⇄ hickey) → codex debate → simplify → code-police, each editing the branch in turn) → CI → evidence. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly types `/be` or `$be`; never auto-select from a natural-language request.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

srid/emanote9662026年7月26日 更新

be-review

免费

Run /be's review gauntlet SERIALLY — /lens-debate (lowy ⇄ hickey), then /codex-debate, then /simplify, then code-police, each editing and committing on the live branch in turn. Use from /be §4, or when the user asks to "run the review gauntlet". Requires Claude Code's Skill tool.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

srid/emanote9662026年7月26日 更新

ci

免费

Reference for the `odu` runner — how to invoke a full pipeline, a single recipe, or a platform-pinned node, and how to attach to a live run, from a project whose CI odu runs. Trigger when the user asks to "run CI", "run the pipeline", "re-run a check", to run named lanes or recipes (e.g. "run fmt and nix", "just the e2e lane", bare selectors like `fmt`/`nix`/`e2e`), or names a recipe by `<recipe>@<platform>`. This skill — not a repo's local `just ci` / `just <recipe>` — is how an odu-run request is served.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

srid/emanote9662026年7月26日 更新

Review code for quality, simplicity, and common mistakes before declaring work complete.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

srid/emanote9662026年7月26日 更新

Run an automated codex⇄Claude debate to consensus — no round cap, no deadlock exit. Two explicit subcommands. `review` (also the bare/back-compat default) — codex (reviewer) critiques the current diff and a Claude subagent (author) fixes/disputes, looping until they agree. `answer` — Claude and codex each answer a freeform prompt in parallel, then cross-check until they agree, and a unified answer is returned. Use when the user types `/codex-debate`, asks to "have codex review this", "run the codex debate", "review this PR with codex", "argue this with codex until you agree", or passes a question to "have Claude and codex debate/answer until they agree".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

srid/emanote9662026年7月26日 更新

do

免费

Do a task end-to-end — implement, PR, CI loop, ship. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly types `/do` or `$do`; never auto-select from a natural-language request, even one that sounds like an end-to-end task.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

srid/emanote9662026年7月26日 更新

查看 srid 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题