Skip to main content
Manusで任意のスキルを実行
ワンクリックで
GitHub リポジトリ

claude-cordyceps

claude-cordyceps には ellyseum から収集した 2 個の skills があり、リポジトリ単位の職業カバレッジとサイト内 skill 詳細ページを表示します。

収集済み skills
2
Stars
1
更新
2026-05-04
Forks
0
職業カバレッジ
1 件の職業カテゴリ · 100% 分類済み
リポジトリエクスプローラー

このリポジトリの skills

grinder
ソフトウェア開発者

Autonomous looped repo work. For each work unit (phase, bucket, item, whatever the user calls them): plan → peer-review council → revise (≤2 rounds) → implement → test → diff council → commit. Background-ping wake-up between iterations. Repeat until the user's roadmap is exhausted or a halt trigger fires. PERSISTENCE: Claude Code's task tool is the primary state — work units and per-unit grinder steps are TaskCreate'd at run start, TaskUpdate'd on every transition. Tasks survive auto-compact, so wake-up reads the task list to find where it left off. ACTIVATE on: "grind the backlog", "grind through this", "auto-grind <X>", "run the grinder on <X>", "go autonomous on <X>", "continue with the <buckets|phases|items>", "use the auto repo grinder". REQUIRES: `cordy` on PATH and at least 2 peer drivers reachable. Refuses to start with fewer drivers — single-peer "council" defeats the diversity benefit. Auto mode (or equivalent permission-bypass) must be active; the loop cannot pause for permission prompts. NOT f

2026-05-04
cordy
ソフトウェア開発者

Drive `cordy` (the @ellyseum/cordyceps CLI) to consult peer LLMs from different model families — Codex (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Ollama (local), and additional Claude variants — for ANY task where cross-model input improves the answer: code reviews, plan critiques, red-teaming, brainstorming, decision exploration, claim cross-checking, meta-reviews of reviews. Capability skill — Claude picks the right shape (single peer query, silo'd panel + chair, adversarial pair, divergent panel, tiered escalation, persistent sidecar, meta-review) for the user's ask. ACTIVATE on explicit cross-model phrases: "consult peers", "spawn council", "convene council", "ask the panel", "code review with peers", "plan critique with peers", "brainstorm with peers" / "brainstorm with multiple LLMs", "what would <name-of-model> think about this", "ask Codex/Gemini/Ollama". TIGHT, NOT BROAD: phrases like "second opinion", "peer review", "plan review", "red team this" are AMBIGUOUS — they can mean "Claude take another pass" rather tha

2026-04-29