メニュー
Create robust Python automation with full logging and safety checks. Use when tasks need complex data processing, authenticated API work, conditional file operations, or error handling beyond simple shell commands.
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。
| name | python-script |
| description | Create robust Python automation with full logging and safety checks. Use when tasks need complex data processing, authenticated API work, conditional file operations, or error handling beyond simple shell commands. |
Design and run Python scripts with clear requirements, safety checks, and reproducible logging.
{project} is the git repo name (if in a git repo) or the basename of the current working directory.
uvx ruff check --fix ~/.agents/sessions/{project}/scripts/{script_name}.py.uv run --script ~/.agents/sessions/{project}/scripts/{script_name}.py and monitor logs.~/.agents/sessions/{project}/logs/{script_name}.log and stream to consoleRotatingFileHandler if logs may grow largeRead references/script-template.md for the full script template.
Maintain the nmem knowledge base — a lint pass that hunts contradictions, duplicates, dead references, and expired entries, plus a synthesis pass that reports what changed and what is drifting. Use when the user says "lint my memory", "curate", "整理知识库", "nmem 维护", suspects memories have gone stale, or on a scheduled maintenance run.
Delegate a self-contained task to a separate streaming agent session, then summarize the result. The backend (Claude Code or Pi) is chosen automatically from the model you name — say "let opus/sonnet/claude look at it" to route to Claude Code, or "let codex/gpt look at it" to route to Pi. Use when the user wants delegation, subagents, parallel research, isolated context, resuming a delegated task, or running a task on a specific model regardless of which runtime backs it.
Multi-perspective code review using adversarial subagent debate. First gives the user a simple but detailed What/Why/How/Refs brief: what changed, why it exists, how it works, and which files, commits, or PR references support the explanation. Then spawns parallel reviewer agents (bug hunter, security auditor, architecture critic, correctness prover) that independently analyze the current branch diff, consolidates and debates findings, and produces a machine-readable review bundle plus human-readable HTML report with near-zero false positives. The report opens with a reviewer-facing overview of the PR — its purpose, what changed and why, whether the changes are necessary, and the regression and security risk — before the debated findings. Use when the user says "review", "code review", "review my changes", "check this PR", "find bugs", "audit this branch", or wants a thorough quality check before merging.
Write a decision-first implementation plan as plan.md — design decisions with alternatives and tradeoffs, phased tasks with acceptance blocks, inline review threads, and per-phase handoff notes. Use when the user wants an implementation plan, says "write a plan", "plan this out", "写个计划", wants a plan reviewed or review threads resolved, or as the Plan step of the spec-dev workflow.
Execute an existing plan.md phase by phase — catch up from the prior handoff, implement, verify the Acceptance block, review if warranted, commit, write the next handoff. Use when the user says "implement the plan", "execute the plan", "continue the plan", "next phase", "按计划实现", picks up a stalled plan in a fresh session, or as the Impl step of the spec-dev workflow.
Scout the territory before building — a map-vs-territory diagnostic plus eight lightweight techniques (blindspot pass, brainstorm prototypes, interview, references, decision-first plans, deviation notes, explainers, quizzes) for finding your unknowns before they get expensive, applied inline with no workflow ceremony. Use when the user starts unfamiliar work, says "scout this", "blindspot pass", "unknown unknowns", "我不熟这块", "帮我找盲区", can't articulate what they want, or a long-horizon task came back wrong and planning harder isn't helping.
SOC 職業分類に基づく
