소스 정보
- 저장소
- DeL-TaiseiOzaki/claude-code-orchestra
- 최근 소스 활동
- 2026년 7월 29일 04:28
- 감지된 SKILL.md 언어
- 영어
- 스타
- 194
- 포크
- 36
설치 방법
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
소스 파일 검토
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
메뉴
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/DeL-TaiseiOzaki/claude-code-orchestra --skill simplify명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | simplify |
| description | Simplify and refactor code while preserving functionality and library constraints. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Simplify and refactor $ARGUMENTS.
This skill edits source code while promising not to change behaviour and not to widen its own scope. Both promises are checked rather than asserted: Step 0 records a gate baseline and the declared target set, and Step 5 compares against it. A refactor whose baseline was never recorded cannot be reported as verified.
Resolve $ARGUMENTS into a concrete list of files and/or directories before
editing anything, and pass each one as a --scope entry in Step 0. That list
is the answer to "was this a refactor or a rewrite" — anything else that changes
is reported as out_of_scope_files and fails Step 5.
python3 .agents/skills/simplify/simplify_gate.py --phase before \
--scope {target file or dir} [--scope {another}] [--base main]
It runs _shared/verify.sh and _shared/gather_diff.py and writes
.agents/logs/simplify-baseline.json: the gate status of every tool as it is
now, the current HEAD, the declared scope, and any file that was already
modified before you started. Without this, a gate that was red the whole time is
indistinguishable from a regression this refactor introduced.
Read the JSON:
overall_before — pass / fail / no_gates. On fail, note which tools
are in the baseline as failing; Step 5 will report them as
pre_existing_failures rather than blaming your refactor.pre_existing_changes[] — dirty files you did not touch, excluded from the
scope check later.baseline_file, artifacts[].Exit codes: 0 baseline recorded · 1 bad arguments, or --scope missing —
without a declared target set "no scope creep" cannot be checked · 2 no gate
could run at all, so the refactor would be unverifiable · 3 verify.sh /
gather_diff.py failed, or the baseline could not be written.
--baseline PATH moves the record elsewhere (default
.agents/logs/simplify-baseline.json); pass the same value to both phases when
two refactors are in flight. --project-root DIR relocates the repository root.
On exit 2, stop. Either configure the project's gates, or agree with the user
on the exact commands that will verify this refactor, run them, record each
command with its exit code, and re-run with --allow-no-gates so the payload
carries allow_no_gates: true. Do not edit code first and decide how to verify
it afterwards.
Reading the target files, checking library behaviour, and applying the edits are
all past the triggers in .agents/rules/delegation.md — an unread file, a
codebase sweep, external lookup, more than ~30 lines of output. The lead keeps
Step 0, Step 5, and the "is this actually simpler" judgment; everything between
them is delegated, one delegation per scope entry, launched in parallel when the
scopes are independent:
Task tool:
subagent_type: "general-purpose-sonnet" # general-purpose-opus when the code carries
# security, concurrency, or data-integrity risk
prompt: |
Objective: Simplify {scope path} without changing observable behaviour.
Scope:
- Edit only these paths: {the same --scope entries passed in Step 0}.
- Refactor only. No new features, no API changes, no dependency changes.
- Do not modify, skip, or weaken any test.
Inputs:
- Read .agents/rules/coding-principles.md first.
- Library constraints: .agents/docs/libraries/ (check every library the target uses;
WebSearch only what those notes do not answer).
- Apply the Simplification Principles and the patterns in
.agents/skills/simplify/SKILL.md (early return, extract function).
Acceptance checks — run before returning:
bash .agents/skills/_shared/verify.sh
Output shape:
## Hotspots found (file:line -> problem)
## Changes applied (file:line -> what and why it reads better)
## Library constraints that shaped or blocked a change
## Anything deliberately left alone
Context discipline: return the summary only; do not paste diffs or file bodies.
The reference material below is what the delegate follows — and what the lead applies directly when the target is a single already-open file of roughly 20 lines or fewer (Self-Handle List item 2).
.agents/docs/libraries/For each complexity issue:
Apply changes following these patterns:
Early Return:
# Before
def process(value):
if value is not None:
if value > 0:
return do_something(value)
return None
# After
def process(value):
if value is None:
return None
if value <= 0:
return None
return do_something(value)
Extract Function:
# Before
def main():
# 50 lines of mixed concerns
...
# After
def main():
data = load_data()
result = process_data(data)
save_result(result)
python3 .agents/skills/simplify/simplify_gate.py --phase after
The scope and base ref are read back from the baseline, so they cannot drift
between the two phases; --scope may be repeated here to narrow them further.
It re-runs the gates, re-collects the changed files, and attributes every
failure:
regressions[] — a gate that passed (or was skipped) before and fails now.
This is the only list your refactor is responsible for. Fix it.pre_existing_failures[] — red before, red after. Report, do not fix here.fixed[] — red before, green now.gates — {tool: {before, after}} for every gate; quote it rather than
re-typing statuses, so skipped is never reported as pass.changed_files[] / in_scope_files[] / out_of_scope_files[] — the diff this
run produced. out_of_scope_files is non-empty only when a file outside
--scope changed and was not already dirty at baseline.verify_log, diff_file — full gate output and the full patch, for reading
rather than for context.warnings[] — includes "no file changed" and "HEAD moved between the two
phases".Exit codes: 0 no regression and no scope creep · 1 no readable baseline (run
--phase before first) · 2 a gate regressed, a file outside --scope changed,
or no gate could run · 3 verify.sh / gather_diff.py failed.
Then self-review diff_file yourself: the gate proves the tests still pass and
the scope held, not that the result is simpler. That judgment is yours.
regressions[] is the evidence--phase after again after each significant change; it is idempotentSOC 직업 분류 기준