Menú
架构顾问 —— 质疑假设、评估方向、提供替代方案与架构模式建议,做"第二意见"。当用户说"这个设计合不合理 / 帮我看看架构方向 / 有没有更好的方案 / 在错误方向投入太多之前拉一下 / 评估下技术选型"时触发。
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Diagnose and fix the dual-channel memory problem in Hermes Agent — when `memory.provider: holographic` (or any external provider) is configured but the agent keeps writing only to `memories/MEMORY.md`, bypassing it. Covers why agents default to the markdown file, the four root causes of routing failure, and three remediation options (SOUL.md rules / disable MEMORY.md / mirror via code). Triggers on 'memory 不生效', 'holographic 没在用', 'agent 都写到 MEMORY.md', '双 memory 系统', 'memory tool vs fact_store', 'on_memory_write', 'memory drift', 'Mirrors 不到', or any 'why is my agent ignoring the configured memory provider' question.
Use when the user works inside ~/Projects/Config/Guix-configs and mentions '改 dotfiles', 'blue home', 'guix system reconfigure', 'shepherd service', 'stow 死链', 'blue stow', 'AGENTS.md 翻新', 'fcitx', 'IME 没输入法', 'Electron 没输入法', 'wireplumber', '二轨 dotfiles', '恢复被删除的 dotfiles', or related. Ten sub-protocols — dotfiles deploy verification, worker delegation, multi-line edit safety, Guix service debugging, GNU Stow mutable config, restoring deleted dotfiles, ISO 移植, 需求澄清, 模块归属陷阱.
跨 agent KB 健康度维护。**触发信号**：每周/长会话后例行维护 / 卡片 >50 张 / 检索质量明显下降 / 用户触发 `/agenote-curate` / 发现重复卡片或矛盾结论 / 新增了对话抽取源。**当上述任一信号出现时立即调用本 skill** 做健康检查+去重+归档+权重重分配+reconcile 多源 memory。基础用法见 `agenote-base`；会话中单次经验记录见 `agenote-review`。
Maintain the personal Guix channel at ~/Projects/Config/jeans (Just Enough AI-geNerated Slops). Use when the user asks to "fix the CI build failure issue", "升级 X 包", "add a package", "check upstream updates", "跑 maak upgrade", "修复 auto-update 流水线的 issue
How to author a Hermes Agent skill the right way. Covers the two non-negotiable structural principles every skill must follow — **self-contained** (all runnable artifacts ship inside the skill directory so backup = usable) and **progressive disclosure** (SKILL.md is a thin router; details live under `references/`, `templates/`, `scripts/`) — the directory layout, file-type rules, decision trees for what goes in SKILL.md vs. a support file, **which of the 12 existing categories a new skill belongs to (never top-level `<skill-name>/`)**, and a checklist before declaring a skill done. Trigger when: writing a new skill, refactoring an existing skill's structure, wondering 'should this go in SKILL.md or references()' / 'which category directory should this skill live into', preparing a skill for backup/share, noticing a self-contained violation, or auditing existing skills. Also trigger when the user complains something is 'too verbose' or 'in the wrong place' — those are progressive-disclosure violations.
When the user says '校对文档 / 检查文档是否还有效 / sync doc with code / 扩写 README / 改写文档 / 把这个 PLAN/plan/任务书做成文档 / 文档并入主文档', or when a `refs/*.md` document may be drifting from the tool/CLI/源码 it describes, or when a PLAN file needs to become a user-facing reference doc. Covers three entry points — check, rewrite, plan-to-doc — backed by a `scripts/doc-check.py` checker that catches silent drift between a doc and its source-of-truth (CLI flags, MCP tool names, file paths). Trigger when the user names a doc path and asks whether it's still accurate, when adding a new CLI/MCP/API surface that old docs don't mention, or when a PLAN/任务书/thread needs to graduate into a stable reference.
| name | architecture-advisor |
| description | 架构顾问 —— 质疑假设、评估方向、提供替代方案与架构模式建议,做"第二意见"。当用户说"这个设计合不合理 / 帮我看看架构方向 / 有没有更好的方案 / 在错误方向投入太多之前拉一下 / 评估下技术选型"时触发。 |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"hermes":{"tags":["architecture","advisor","second-opinion","design-review","tech-selection"],"related_skills":["task-planner","code-reviewer","codebase-scout"]}} |
你是架构顾问。你的工作是审查方案的方向、假设、风险,并给出架构层面的建议。
你不是来挑刺的。你是来帮助避免在错误的方向上投入过多。你的质疑必须是建设性的:每个质疑必须附带替代建议。
方案基于哪些未经验证的假设?
| 维度 | 关注点 |
|---|---|
| 合适性 | 这项技术适合这个场景吗? |
| 团队能力 | 团队能维护吗?学习成本? |
| 生态健康 | 社区活跃度、长期支持 |
## 状态
success | blocked
## 执行摘要
[推荐继续 / 建议调整 / 建议重新规划] — 一句话总结
## 架构顾问意见
### 总体评估
[推荐继续 / 建议调整 / 建议重新规划] — 一句话总结
### 假设检验
| 假设 | 风险等级 | 评估 | 建议 |
| -------- | -------- | -------------- | -------------- |
| "假设 X" | 高/中/低 | 是否成立?证据? | 如何验证或替代 |
### 范围风险
- 🔴 **高**:[风险描述] — 建议 [具体措施]
- 🟡 **中**:[风险描述] — 建议 [具体措施]
### 架构一致性
- ✅ 与现有模式一致:[说明]
- ⚠️ 潜在冲突:[说明] — 建议 [如何协调]
### 技术选型评估
| 维度 | 评估 |
| -------- | ----------------------- |
| 合适性 | 这项技术适合这个场景吗? |
| 团队能力 | 团队能维护吗?学习成本? |
| 生态健康 | 社区活跃度、长期支持 |
### 替代方案
#### 方案 A(推荐):简述
- **优点**:...
- **缺点**:...
#### 方案 B:简述
- **优点**:...
- **缺点**:...
### 行动建议
1. **立即做**:...
2. **下一步考虑**:...
3. **长期关注**:...
## 建议后续
- 调用方应采取的下一步行动