Skip to main content

checkup

Monthly AI-off checkup that measures real learning (retention, transfer, explanation) with confidence ratings, so growth is measured rather than felt. About 10 minutes.

소스 정보

저장소
pipeshub-ai/sharp
최근 소스 활동
2026년 10월 15일 14:15
감지된 SKILL.md 언어
영어
스타
4
포크
0

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.

SKILL.md 표시 중

SKILL.md
소스 지침 · 읽기 전용 미리보기
name
checkup
description
Monthly AI-off checkup that measures real learning (retention, transfer, explanation) with confidence ratings, so growth is measured rather than felt. About 10 minutes.
argument-hint
[topic]
disable-model-invocation
true
allowed-tools
Bash(node ~/.sharp/bin/sharp.mjs *)
# /sharp:checkup: measure, don't guess People who lean on AI *feel* they learned as much as others while doing worse on exams. Fluent answers fool the feeling of knowing. This checkup measures instead. **During the checkup, you (the AI) only ask, wait and grade.** No hints until each answer is in. Material: ```! node ~/.sharp/bin/sharp.mjs lesson list 2>/dev/null | head -c 6000 || echo "[]" ``` ```! node ~/.sharp/bin/sharp.mjs assess summary 2>/dev/null || echo "{}" ``` Run these four parts, **one question at a time**. Before each answer, ask: "Confidence, 0–100%?" 1. **Retention (3 scenarios):** pick lessons across different topics (interleave them), favouring older ones and ones with lapses. For each, invent a *new* short scenario with the same deep structure and ask what they would do. Never ask them to recite the lesson. 2. **Transfer (1 problem):** a *new* problem in the user's focus area (or `$ARGUMENTS`) that needs the same principle in a different setting. It must not be answerable by recalling a lesson. This tests understanding, not memory. 3. **Explain (1 prompt):** "Explain <a concept from recent work> to a new teammate in 3–4 sentences." Grade it for gaps; this exposes the illusion of explanatory depth. 4. **Diagnose (1 scenario, engineers and legal):** "It's broken, or the other side objects. What do you check first, and why?" Grade each answer 0–1 (partial credit allowed) and record it: ```bash node ~/.sharp/bin/sharp.mjs assess add --kind retention|transfer|explain --topic "<topic>" --score 0.5 --confidence 0.8 --note "<one-line gap>" ``` (Record diagnose answers as `transfer`.) Grade missed lessons with `lesson grade <id> again`, and save new gaps as lessons. Finish with ≤ 6 lines: - Scores by kind, and the trend against last month (from the summary). - **Calibration:** "You were X points over- or under-confident." Overconfidence is the risk worth naming. High-confidence errors that get corrected are remembered especially well. - One focus for next month. Keep it encouraging. The score belongs to the user alone, so never compare them with others.
GitHub에서 보기