菜单
Analyze colleague feedback for relevance, objectivity, and practical value. Use when evaluating code review comments, architectural feedback, or any critique from a peer before deciding what to act on.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Delegate deep domain analysis, architecture planning, or complex decisions to your own scope's expert agent (claude-opus). Ensures the expert is running for YOUR scope. Use for architectural decisions, multi-step planning, tradeoff evaluation, domain modeling. Never borrows agents from other scopes.
Full feature development cycle with herdr-managed agent panes. Ensures an ai-workers tab exists with coder, researcher, and critic panes, then orchestrates implement-review loop via pi-link. Use when you want a persistent multi-agent workspace managed by herdr.
Delegate a research task to your own scope's researcher agent. Ensures ai-workers panes are running for YOUR scope, then sends the request to <scope>@researcher. Use for codebase exploration, external references, pattern lookup. Never borrows agents from other scopes.
Delegate a code review to your own scope's critic agent. Ensures ai-workers panes are running for YOUR scope, then sends the request to <scope>@critic. Use for code review, diff review, quality checks. Never borrows agents from other scopes.
Full feature development cycle with multi-agent collaboration — researcher, coder, and reviewer. Use when implementing a non-trivial feature that benefits from research, iterative coding, and independent review.
Delegate a task to the most suitable connected agent via link_prompt and return the result to the user. Use when you want to route a request to a specialist colleague on the pi-link network.
| name | colleague-comment |
| description | Analyze colleague feedback for relevance, objectivity, and practical value. Use when evaluating code review comments, architectural feedback, or any critique from a peer before deciding what to act on. |
| argument-hint | <colleague's feedback> |
Analyze colleague feedback on code, architecture, task results, or written work.
Your goal is not to automatically agree, but to objectively determine which comments are genuinely relevant, which need clarification, and which can be declined.
The user provides colleague feedback:
$ARGUMENTS
For each comment:
Group comments into three categories:
Accept — Relevant, objective, actionable. Describe why and how to address it.
Clarify — Potentially valid but ambiguous. Formulate a precise question to ask the colleague.
Decline — Irrelevant, subjective, out of scope, or contradicts established requirements. Explain the reasoning briefly.
End with a short summary: how many comments in each category and the recommended next step.