القائمة
Use when an agent violates a loaded skill despite it being present in context — a gap exists between what the skill says and what the agent did. Also use when reviewing skill effectiveness after a violation, or when deciding whether a skill needs enhancement vs the failure is tolerable.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use when removing dead code, renaming symbols, or refactoring — any change with no external consumers. Triggers on deprecating dead code, wrapper shims, compatibility aliases, TODO-future-cleanup, or refactors that patch structure instead of simplifying.
Use when configuring custom providers for OpenCode.
Use when writing new React components that involve state derived from props, event-driven side effects, or external subscriptions. Also use when auditing existing code for unnecessary useEffect calls, reviewing useEffect-heavy components, or refactoring to eliminate cascading renders. Applies to React 18+ codebases.
Use when about to make git commits, when tempted to bundle unrelated changes behind a single message, or when commit history needs to support git bisect, revert, and cherry-pick workflows. Also use when reviewing a branch before creating a PR. If you are writing a plan, specify that the executor must load this skill before start working.
Use when configuring or enhancing oxlint rules for a JavaScript/TypeScript project, when deciding which lint rules to enable beyond the default correctness category, or when evaluating whether a lint rule's autofix status and noise level make it worth enabling. Also use when bulk-enabling pedantic or style categories has produced excessive noise.
Use when a user provides examples prefixed by "for example", "such as", "e.g.", "like", or ends a list with "etc." / "and so on". For architecture/design tasks, abstract first to identify the concept, then enumerate. For research/clarification tasks, enumerate first — the concept organizes the output but the list is the deliverable.
| name | skill-fails |
| description | Use when an agent violates a loaded skill despite it being present in context — a gap exists between what the skill says and what the agent did. Also use when reviewing skill effectiveness after a violation, or when deciding whether a skill needs enhancement vs the failure is tolerable. |
| license | CC-BY-NC-4.0 |
When an agent violates a loaded skill, a gap exists between the skill's instructions and the agent's behavior. This skill provides a 4-step post-mortem to close that gap with a targeted enhancement — or decide the failure is tolerable.
Do NOT use when: skill wasn't loaded (teach, don't fix), agent followed skill but got wrong result (skill is wrong, not unenforced), or context couldn't contain the skill at all.
| Step | Question |
|---|---|
| 1. Capture violation | What did the agent do vs what does the skill say? Quote both. |
| 2. Classify gap | Why did the instruction fail to prevent the behavior? Use taxonomy below. |
| 3. Assess tolerability | Context window % at failure × severity. Fix or tolerate? |
| 4. Propose enhancement | One targeted edit to close that specific gap. |
| Gap | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Passive language | Rule stated but no enforcement gate. Agent reads, doesn't internalize. | Add a concrete check. |
| Missing anti-pattern | Skill shows correct behavior, never wrong. Agent violates without recognizing it. | Add counter-example. |
| Rationalization loophole | Agent's excuse not covered in prevention table. | Add the excuse + counter. |
| Cognitive-load bypass | Rule buried in prose. Agent under pressure skims past it. | Move to scannable position (red flag, bold, gate). |
| Contradictory guidance | Two rules conflict. Agent picks the easier one. | Resolve contradiction. |
| Context-window attenuation | Skill loaded early, details lost by action time. | Rarely a skill fix. Move critical rules earlier or add gate. |
Context window fullness at failure time is the primary toleration factor.
| Context % | Minor severity | Severe severity |
|---|---|---|
| < 50% | Fix — agent had room | Fix — no excuse |
| 50–80% | Judgment call | Fix — severity demands it |
| > 80% | Tolerate — context explains it | Fix anyway |
Severe = security, data loss, irreversible, user-visible breakage. Minor = style, verbosity, suboptimal structure.
One edit, not a rewrite:
Gap: [type]
Skill says: "[quote]"
Agent did: "[quote]"
Proposed fix: [one edit — gate, counter-example, rationalization row, or reorder]
Violation: Agent wrote bullet-point checklist as commit body: "Merged: - A + B - C..."
Skill said: "Body tells a story, not a checklist."
Gap: Passive language. No enforcement — just "read aloud."
Context: ~60%. Fix needed.
Fix: Added concrete body gate rejecting bullets/lists/headers. Added to Rationalizations and Common Mistakes.
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Rewriting the skill instead of a targeted edit | One edit, one gap. |
| Blaming the agent | Skills prevent failures. If it didn't, the skill has a gap. |
| Fixing context-window failures in the skill | Long context is environmental. Only fix if severe. |
| Adding a rule without a gate | Rules without enforcement are passive. |
After proposing an enhancement: