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/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill ds-implement명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
LLM token logprobs and calibration. Per-decision confidence, ECE, Brier, reliability diagrams, low-confidence triage.
Analyze LLM token logprobs and calibration. Use for per-decision confidence, ECE, Brier scores, reliability diagrams, and low-confidence triage.
回顾最近 N 天的 Claude Code 使用记录——扫描原始会话数据，按主题分组汇总"我都做了什么"，并从个人操作系统视角输出模式、风险与增删建议。当用户说 /recap、"看看我这几天做了什么"、"回顾一下我最近的会话"、"这两天我用 claude 干了啥"、"活动回顾" 时使用。
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | ds-implement |
| description | Phase 3 of /ds workflow. Execute analysis tasks with output-first verification. |
| user-invocable | false |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Skill, TodoWrite, Agent |
| hooks | {"PostToolUse":[{"matcher":"Agent","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-post-subagent-guard.py"}]}],"PreToolUse":[{"matcher":"Agent","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-pre-subagent-clear.py"}]},{"matcher":"Read","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-read-after-subagent-guard.py"}]},{"matcher":"Grep","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-read-after-subagent-guard.py"}]},{"matcher":"Glob","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-read-after-subagent-guard.py"}]},{"matcher":"Write","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-no-main-chat-code-guard.py"}]},{"matcher":"Edit","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-no-main-chat-code-guard.py"}]},{"matcher":"Bash","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ds-no-main-chat-code-guard.py"}]}]} |
Apply output-first verification at every step of analysis implementation. This is Phase 3 of the /ds workflow.
references/verification-patterns.mdImplement analysis with mandatory visible output at every step. NO TDD - instead, every code step MUST produce and verify output.
## The Iron Law of DS ImplementationEVERY CODE STEP MUST PRODUCE VISIBLE OUTPUT. This is not negotiable.
Before moving to the next step, you MUST:
.planning/LEARNINGS.mdThis applies even when YOU think:
If you're about to write code without outputting results, STOP.
You orchestrate. Subagents analyze. For every task in PLAN.md, use the delegation skill:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-delegate/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.
This is MANDATORY. ds-delegate contains the Task agent templates, output-first protocol details, methodology review patterns, and rationalization prevention. Do not attempt to summarize or shortcut it.
If you're about to write analysis code directly, STOP and read ds-delegate.
If you wrote analysis code in main chat, DELETE it immediately and dispatch a Task agent instead. Code written in main chat is contaminated by orchestrator context and must not be kept.
**After completing task N, IMMEDIATELY start task N+1. You MUST NOT pause.** **You MUST NOT proceed to review without verifying ALL tasks are complete. This is not negotiable.**| Scenario | Action |
|---|---|
| You wrote > 3 lines of analysis code in main chat | DELETE immediately. Restart via Task agent. |
| You ran a cell, realized it should have been in Task agent | DELETE the cell output and cell. Re-do via Task agent. |
| You started a transformation in main chat | STOP. DELETE what you've done. Spawn Task agent instead. |
| "Just finish this quick analysis here" | STOP — if it's quick enough to finish, it's quick enough for a Task agent. Delete and restart. |
Helpfulness Check: If you kept main-chat code "because it worked," you bypassed the orchestration protocol. Working code written in the wrong place skips verification and review — it is anti-helpful to the user. Delete it.
| DO | DON'T |
|---|---|
| Print shape after each transform | Chain operations silently |
| Display sample rows | Trust transformations work |
| Show summary stats | Wait until end to check |
| Verify row counts | Assume merges worked |
| Check for unexpected nulls | Skip intermediate checks |
| Plot distributions | Move on without looking |
The Mantra: If not visible, it cannot be trusted.
| Excuse | Reality | Do Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "I'll combine these steps to save time" | Combined steps hide which one failed. Your efficiency creates undiagnosable bugs. | One operation per verification cycle |
| "Output looks roughly right" | "Roughly" means you didn't actually check. Roughly right is precisely wrong. | Compare against PLAN.md expected output with specific numbers |
| "LEARNINGS.md is overhead" | Undocumented steps are invisible to review. Skipping logs means review can't verify your work. | Log every task completion — it takes 30 seconds |
| "This task is trivial, no need to delegate" | Trivial tasks in main chat accumulate into unverified analysis. | Delegate everything, verify everything |
| "I'll read the agent's output later" | Running code without reading the output is running blind. The agent may have reported errors you missed. | Read agent output immediately, verify claims against actual data |
| Drive | Shortcut | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Helpfulness | Skipping output verification | You assumed the output was correct because the code ran. The results are wrong — your assumption is the error the user publishes. You were anti-helpful. |
| Helpfulness | Claiming task complete without checking output | You logged "COMPLETE" in LEARNINGS.md without verifying the output. The task may have silently failed — the user acts on results that don't exist. |
| Competence | Running all tasks sequentially yourself | You ran everything yourself to feel productive. Quality suffered without delegation and review — your productivity was incompetence disguised as efficiency. |
| Efficiency | Not delegating to Task agents | You wrote analysis in main chat because it felt faster. Now it must be deleted and redone. Your shortcut doubled the work — anti-efficient. |
| Approval | Skipping LEARNINGS.md logging | You skipped documentation to move faster. The reviewer cannot verify your work. The user loses trust when review fails. You lost their approval. |
| Thought | Why It's Wrong | Do Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "I'll check at the end" | STOP - you're letting errors compound silently | Check after every step |
| "This transform is simple" | STOP - simple code can still be wrong | Output and verify |
| "I know merge worked" | STOP - you've assumed this before and been wrong | Check row counts |
| "Data looks fine" | STOP - you're confusing "looks" with verification | Print stats, show samples |
| "I'll batch the outputs" | STOP - you're about to lose your ability to isolate issues | Output per operation |
| "Just a quick plot in main chat" | STOP - you're about to violate delegation | Spawn a Task agent |
| "I'll combine these steps to save time" | STOP - combined steps hide which one failed | One operation per verification cycle |
| "Output looks roughly right" | STOP - "roughly" means you didn't actually check | Compare against .planning/PLAN.md expected output |
| "LEARNINGS.md is overhead" | STOP - undocumented steps are invisible to review | Log every task completion to .planning/LEARNINGS.md, it takes 30 seconds |
| "This task is trivial, no need to delegate" | STOP - trivial tasks in main chat accumulate into unverified analysis | Delegate everything, verify everything |
After prerequisites pass and PLAN.md verified, check for parallelization potential:
Skip this choice when:
after N with no independent groups)CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS is not availableOtherwise, ask the user:
AskUserQuestion(questions=[{
"question": "How should we implement the analysis tasks in PLAN.md?",
"header": "Strategy",
"options": [
{"label": "Sequential (Default)", "description": "One task at a time with output-first verification. Safest, most DS work is sequential."},
{"label": "Agent team (parallel)", "description": "Spawn analyst per independent task group. Only for truly independent analysis branches (descriptive stats by subgroup, model comparisons). Requires reconciliation."}
],
"multiSelect": false
}])
If Sequential: Proceed to Implementation Process below (current behavior).
If Agent team: Skip to Agent Team Implementation (Parallel).
If PLAN.md specifies Implementation Language: SAS or Mixed, load SAS enforcement BEFORE dispatching any SAS tasks. Paste the enforcement block into every SAS subagent prompt.
Full SAS enforcement rules: See references/sas-enforcement.md
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Read PLAN.md + Load │
│ ds-delegate + ETL refs │
└───────────┬─────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ For each task in PLAN │◄──────────────────────┐
│ (in dependency order) │ │
└───────────┬─────────────┘ │
▼ │
┌─────────────────────────┐ │
│ Dispatch Task agent │ │
│ (per ds-delegate) │ │
└───────────┬─────────────┘ │
▼ │
┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │
│ Read agent output │────→│ Output wrong │ │
│ Verify output present │ │ or missing? │ │
│ + reasonable │ └──────┬───────┘ │
└───────────┬─────────────┘ │ │
│ OK ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ │
│ │ STOP. Investigate │ │
│ │ Log issue. Fix. │ │
│ │ Re-verify. │ │
│ └──────────────────┘ │
▼ │
┌─────────────────────────┐ │
│ Log to LEARNINGS.md │ │
│ (Task N: COMPLETE) │ │
└───────────┬─────────────┘ │
▼ │
More tasks? ──── YES ─────────────────────┘
│
NO
▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Exit Gate: Compare │
│ PLAN.md vs LEARNINGS │
│ (all tasks accounted?) │
└───────────┬─────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Invoke ds-validate │
└─────────────────────────┘
This flowchart IS the specification. If the narrative below and this flowchart disagree, the flowchart wins.
If user sends an off-topic message during implementation, follow C6 from ds-common-constraints.md:
Do NOT silently switch context. Silent switches kill the implementation loop.
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/ds-common-constraints.md for the full constraint index.
For implementation phase, load these specific constraints:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/constraints/ds-data-quality-checks.md
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/constraints/ds-post-subagent-boundary.md
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/constraints/ds-deviation-rules.md
Load conventions for implementation phase:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/ds-common-conventions.md for the full convention index.
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/conventions/ds-assumption-over-evidence.md
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/conventions/ds-deferred-verification.md
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/conventions/ds-topic-change-protocol.md
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/conventions/ds-escape-patterns.md
Read(".planning/PLAN.md")
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-delegate/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.
Follow the task order defined in the plan. Use ds-delegate's templates for every task.
ETL Strategy Enforcement — load domain-specific references based on PLAN.md:
If PLAN.md contains an ## ETL Strategy section, the user made decisions during planning that MUST be enforced during implementation. Check each subsection and load the corresponding enforcement:
| PLAN.md Section | Enforcement Reference | Inject Into |
|---|---|---|
Implementation Language: SAS or Mixed | SAS ETL enforcement (skills/wrds/references/sas-etl.md) | Every SAS subagent prompt |
Filter Strategy table present | ETL enforcement (skills/ds-implement/references/etl-enforcement.md) § Filter Push-Down | Subagent prompts for data loading tasks |
Parallelism Plan table present | ETL enforcement (skills/ds-implement/references/etl-enforcement.md) § Parallelism | Implementation strategy choice |
Data Flow with intermediates | ETL enforcement (skills/ds-implement/references/etl-enforcement.md) § Caching | Subagent prompts for tasks producing/consuming intermediates |
Scale-Up Testing Plan table present | ETL enforcement (skills/ds-implement/references/etl-enforcement.md) § Scale-Up + domain reference (e.g., gemini-batch/references/scale-up-testing.md) | Before any batch submission task |
To load these references, discover the plugin cache path first:
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/wrds/references/sas-etl.md and follow its instructions.${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-implement/references/etl-enforcement.md and follow its instructions.If PLAN.md has NO ETL Strategy section: Skip this — proceed directly to Step 2.
Before starting each task, check context availability:
| Level | Remaining Context | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | >35% | Proceed with task |
| Warning | 25-35% | Complete current task, then invoke ds-handoff |
| Critical | ≤25% | Invoke ds-handoff immediately — no new tasks |
At Warning level: After current task completes, invoke:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-handoff/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.
Why: A multi-task analysis pipeline with 20% context remaining produces degraded output. Better to handoff cleanly and resume fresh.
For each task in PLAN.md:
Document every significant step:
## Task N: [Description] - COMPLETE
**Input:** [Describe input state]
**Operation:** [What was done]
**Output:**
- Shape: [final shape]
- Key findings: [observations]
**Verification:** [How you confirmed it worked]
**Next:** [What comes next]
After a task passes review, append a structured summary to LEARNINGS.md:
## Task N: [task description]
---
task: N
status: completed
implements: [DATA-01, STAT-03]
affects: [notebooks/analysis.py, data/processed/]
key-files:
created: [list of new files]
modified: [list of changed files]
deviations: {r1: 0, r2: 1, r3: 0, r4: 0}
---
One-liner: [SUBSTANTIVE summary — not "Task complete" but "Merged CRSP-Compustat panel with winsorized returns at 1%/99%"]
Changes: [what was added/modified and why]
Output: [output files produced and their contents]
One-liner rule: Must be SUBSTANTIVE. Good: "Panel regression with firm and year FE, clustered SEs, 3 robustness checks". Bad: "Completed task 3".
See references/verification-patterns.md for detailed code patterns for:
See references/etl-enforcement.md for ETL strategy enforcement:
Triggers when PLAN.md includes a Scale-Up Testing Plan table. NO FULL BATCH WITHOUT A SUCCESSFUL TEST BATCH. This is not negotiable.
Three stages: Test (~10 items, always required) -> Intermediate (~100, if total >500) -> Large (~1,000, if total >5,000). Each stage has quality gates that must pass before scaling up.
Full protocol, rationalization table, and red flags: See references/scale-up-testing.md
| Failure | Why It Happens | Prevention |
|---|---|---|
| Silent data loss | Merge drops rows | Print row counts before/after |
| Hidden nulls | Join introduces nulls | Check null counts after joins |
| Wrong aggregation | Groupby logic error | Display sample groups |
| Type coercion | Pandas silent conversion | Verify dtypes after load |
| Off-by-one | Date filtering edge cases | Print min/max dates |
Never hide failures. Bad output documented is better than silent failure.
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Task done, should check in with user" | You're wasting context. User wants ALL tasks done. Keep going. |
| "User might want to see intermediate results" | You're assuming wrong. User will see results at the END. Continue. |
| "Natural pause point" | You're making excuses. Only pause when ALL tasks complete or you're blocked. |
| "Should summarize this step" | You're procrastinating. Summarize AFTER all tasks. Keep moving. |
Your pausing between tasks is procrastination disguised as courtesy.
When subagents encounter unplanned issues during implementation, follow this 4-rule system:
| Rule | Trigger | Action | Permission |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1: Bug | Data integrity bugs, wrong joins, type errors, off-by-one in date ranges, NaN propagation, index alignment errors | Fix → verify output with output-first protocol → track [Rule 1 - Bug] | Auto |
| R2: Missing Critical | Missing null handling, no dedup check after merge, missing row count verification, no dtype validation, missing outlier handling | Add → verify → track [Rule 2 - Missing Critical] | Auto |
| R3: Blocking | Missing dependency/package, wrong file path, data file unavailable, API rate limit, memory error on large data | Fix blocker → verify proceeds → track [Rule 3 - Blocking] | Auto |
| R4a: Data Assumption | Data doesn't match expected shape/schema/distribution — expected panel but got cross-section, unexpected nulls in key column, different date range than specified, unexpected categories | STOP → present finding with evidence → track [Rule 4a - Data Assumption] | Ask user |
| R4b: Methodology Change | Analysis approach needs changing — different model needed, different sample definition, different variable construction, need to add/remove control variables | STOP → present decision with alternatives → track [Rule 4b - Methodology] | Ask user |
Priority: R4a/R4b (STOP) > R1-R3 (auto) > unsure → escalate as R4.
Edge cases:
Tracking format per task:
Each task summary in .planning/LEARNINGS.md should end with:
Deviations: N auto-fixed (R1: X, R2: Y, R3: Z). R4 escalations: [list or "none"].
Full protocol: See references/agent-team-protocol.md for prerequisites, spawn prompt template, lead monitoring, reconciliation (3 passes), and usage guidelines.
Key points:
Checkpoint type: human-verify (all tasks pass — machine-verifiable)
Before proceeding to validation, execute this gate:
.planning/PLAN.md — list every task by number and name.planning/LEARNINGS.md — find entries for each taskStaleness Check: LEARNINGS.md must be updated in THIS session, not reused from prior work.
Stale LEARNINGS.md = false gate pass = unverified work = the user gets results no one actually checked.
If ANY task is missing from LEARNINGS.md, implement it before proceeding.
Claiming all tasks are done without checking LEARNINGS.md against PLAN.md is NOT HELPFUL — missing tasks mean incomplete analysis the user relies on.
After passing the exit gate, IMMEDIATELY discover and read the validation phase:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-validate/SKILL.md and follow its instructions. Follow its instructions to validate outputs before review.