メニュー
Evidence-first ECC Tools burn and billing audit workflow. Use when investigating runaway PR creation, quota bypass, premium-model leakage, duplicate jobs, or GitHub App cost spikes in the ECC Tools repo.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use after a complex task, failure, or when reviewing what was learned. Teaches how to write growth logs that extract reusable patterns — not diary entries.
Design a goal-oriented agent loop, and review it for the ways loops go wrong — spinning and burning tokens, Goodhart-gaming the verifier, or running a wrong answer to completion. Two actions: (1) WRITE a loop — gate whether to build it, define a machine-decidable goal, pick the loop type, pick a skeleton; (2) REVIEW a loop — run it past five failure modes plus decidability, boundaries, fallback, judge independence, and keep-judgment-with-the-human red lines. Use when designing an autonomous agent loop, or when you already have one and worry it will spin, cheat, or run a wrong answer to the end. Complements the mechanism-layer loop skills (autonomous-loops, continuous-agent-loop) by covering the judgment layer they don't. 中文触发：写 loop、设计 loop、做一个 loop、检查 loop 对不对、loop 体检、loop 会不会跑飞、可判定目标、五个崩法、plan build judge。English triggers: design an agent loop, write a loop, check a loop, loop review, prevent a runaway loop, goal-oriented loop, decidable goal, plan/build/judge.
Stop hook that blocks Claude from finishing until quality checks pass. Detects rationalization patterns (surface text heuristics), stale learning logs (filesystem mtime), and low disk space. Complements self-audit by mechanically enforcing learning capture habits.
React Native and Expo app patterns — Expo Router navigation, state separation (server/client/route/form), TanStack Query data fetching with Zod, performant lists, NativeWind/StyleSheet styling, native APIs, and secure storage. Use when building or editing React Native / Expo screens, components, navigation, or data layers.
Instinct-based learning system that observes sessions via hooks, creates atomic instincts with confidence scoring, and evolves them into skills/commands/agents. v2.1 adds project-scoped instincts to prevent cross-project contamination.
Use this skill when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Enforces test-driven development with 80%+ coverage including unit, integration, and E2E tests.
| name | ecc-tools-cost-audit |
| description | Evidence-first ECC Tools burn and billing audit workflow. Use when investigating runaway PR creation, quota bypass, premium-model leakage, duplicate jobs, or GitHub App cost spikes in the ECC Tools repo. |
| metadata | {"origin":"ECC"} |
Use this skill when the user suspects the ECC Tools GitHub App is burning cost, over-creating PRs, bypassing usage limits, or routing free users into premium analysis paths.
This is a focused operator workflow for the sibling ECC-Tools repo. It is not a generic billing skill and it is not a repo-wide code review pass.
Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
autonomous-loops for bounded multi-step audits that cross webhooks, queues, billing, and retriesagentic-engineering for tracing the request path into discrete, provable unitscustomer-billing-ops when repo behavior and customer-impact math must be separated cleanlysearch-first before inventing helpers or re-implementing repo-local utilitiessecurity-review when auth, usage gates, entitlements, or secrets are touchedverification-loop for proving rerun safety and exact post-fix statetdd-workflow when the fix needs regression coverage in the worker, router, or billing pathsECC-Tools repo and depends on webhook handlers, queue workers, usage reservation, PR creation logic, or paid-gate enforcementECC-Tools repo, not in everything-claude-codeECC-Tools reposrc/index.* or the main entrypoint firstIf the user asked for code changes, prioritize fixes in this order:
Keep the pass bounded to one to three direct fixes unless the same root cause clearly spans multiple files.
If pushes, PR syncs, and manual audits all enqueue the same job and the worker always creates a PR, analysis equals PR spam.
If usage is checked at the front door but only incremented in the worker, concurrent requests can all pass the gate and exceed quota.
If free queued jobs can still route into Anthropic or another premium provider when keys exist, that is real spend leakage even if the user never sees the premium result.
If pull_request.synchronize, branch pushes, or comment-triggered runs fire on app-owned branches, the app can recursively analyze its own output.
If the system can spend tokens and then fail on PR creation, file update, or branch collision, it is burning cost without shipping value.