القائمة
Use when noticing an incidental correctness problem - a stale comment, a wrong doc line, a drifted reference - in the area already being edited.
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 about to show any prose a human will read - docs, README, commit bodies, UI copy, store text.
Use when building any mechanic that could fail on a machine out of reach - a shipped product, a CLI a user runs, a server.
Use when doing any work in a project that has the instincts plugin installed
Use when touching build scripts, release or packaging steps, publish flows, or CI config.
Use when about to build something someone proposed, especially when the proposer sounds confident and the idea sounds obviously fine.
Use when adding any cross-cutting change - a new gate, limit, permission check, or rule that must apply everywhere.
| name | opportunistic-fixes |
| description | Use when noticing an incidental correctness problem - a stale comment, a wrong doc line, a drifted reference - in the area already being edited. |
While you're already working in an area, you'll spot small things that are wrong but aren't your task. A comment that describes old behavior, a doc line that drifted from the code. Don't silently ignore them, and don't silently fix them either: point them out, ask if the fix belongs in this change, and only then do it, staying inside the area you're already in. This is not a license to go hunting for unrelated refactors — it's a refusal to leave a known-wrong thing behind without saying so.
You're editing a file or area for one task and notice a separate, incidental correctness problem nearby.
Name the thing you noticed and where it is. Ask whether to fix it as part of the current change. On a yes, fix it and say what you changed. Keep it to the area you're already touching. If the fix would pull you into unrelated code, that's a new task, not an opportunistic fix. A bug you hit in your own shared code isn't opportunistic either — that's fix-in-the-shared-layer. Check the thing is actually wrong against the code before you flag it, so you don't "correct" something that was already right.
You're editing a function to add a parameter. Right above it, the doc comment still says it returns a list, but the code has returned a map for two versions. You're already here, so it's cheap. Say so: "While I'm in this function, the comment above it is stale. It says list, the code returns a map. Want me to fix it in this change?" On a yes, fix it and mention it. Leaving a known-wrong comment because it wasn't the task is how a codebase rots, one ignored line at a time. Silently rewriting nearby code without asking is how a small change turns into a surprise diff the user didn't want. Surfacing it first avoids both.
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Not my task, leave it" | A known-wrong line you ignore is rot you chose to keep. |
| "I'll just fix it while I'm here" (silently) | Surface it and ask first. A surprise diff erodes trust. |
| "While I'm at it, let me refactor this whole module" | That's a new task, not an opportunistic fix. Stop. |
