一键导入
gh-issue-improvement
Generate a structured improvement/enhancement proposal for GitHub issues based on conversation context
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。
菜单
Generate a structured improvement/enhancement proposal for GitHub issues based on conversation context
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
Validate review findings about an implementation plan against the codebase and repo rules, fix the valid ones in the plan, and write a feedback file noting what changed and what was rejected (and why). For plan-review findings, not code-review findings.
Expert review of an implementation plan against a GitHub issue/enhancement description (provided as a local file or a GitHub issue URL) and the current repository codebase. Use when asked to critique a plan for correctness, completeness, codebase alignment, risks, and test/rollout readiness (do not implement).
Manually review a feedback file produced after implementation-plan review findings were addressed. Use when the user asks to read a findings-feedback file and verify that the plan changes correctly close, correctly reject, or fail to close the original implementation-plan-review findings, while checking for newly introduced or newly exposed plan problems. Writes only new findings to the plan-id findings directory and replies with the output file path or a concise no-new-findings status.
Use this skill whenever the agent needs to deploy a smart contract to Sepolia testnet via Foundry (`forge create` or `forge script --broadcast`), routed through the Blockscout PRO API's JSON-RPC gateway instead of a third-party RPC provider. Trigger on requests like "deploy this contract to Sepolia", "deploy via Foundry", "broadcast this Foundry deployment script", or any `forge create`/`forge script` invocation that needs a signer and an RPC endpoint for Sepolia (chain id 11155111) in this project. Also consult it to find which local Foundry keystore to sign with — this project stores test signing keys as encrypted keystores under `.ai/wallet/`, never as a plain private key in `.env`. Do not use this for reads (balances, transaction history, contract info) — use the connected Blockscout MCP tools for those directly; this skill is specifically about broadcasting a deployment.
Enter the worktree of a GitHub PR, validate the code-review comments raised on it against what the code actually does and the repo rules, fix the valid ones directly in the PR's source/tests, and report in chat — a brief note per closed comment and a detailed plain-language explanation of every comment left unclosed and why. For code-review comments on a PR. Invoke manually.
TRIGGER CONDITIONS - invoke this skill when ANY of these apply: User-triggered (explicit request): - User mentions "specification", "SPEC", "SPEC.md", "spec requirements" - User asks to "verify with spec", "confirm with specification", "check requirements" - User requests "authoritative requirements" or "source of truth" Agent self-triggered (during reasoning): - Before implementing any feature or making code changes - When verifying technical requirements or constraints - When making architectural or design decisions - When you need unbiased guidance not influenced by current implementation - When encountering conflicting information and need ground truth PURPOSE: Consults SPEC.md through an isolated subagent that ONLY reads the specification, never implementation code. This ensures guidance is based on authoritative requirements, not potentially incorrect existing code.
| name | gh-issue-improvement |
| description | Generate a structured improvement/enhancement proposal for GitHub issues based on conversation context |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
This skill generates a well-structured improvement/enhancement proposal for GitHub issues based on the conversation context and saves it to .ai/gh_issues/YYMMDD-<short-issue-name>.md. This skill is specifically designed for improvements and enhancements - not for bug reports or error fixes.
When invoked, this skill extracts improvement information from the current conversation and creates a standardized GitHub enhancement proposal document.
Use this skill for:
direct_api_call)Do NOT use this skill for:
Review the conversation to identify:
Create a filename using the pattern:
.ai/gh_issues/YYMMDD-<short-issue-name-with-dashes>.md
Where:
YYMMDD: Current date in 2-digit year, month, day format (e.g., 260128 for January 28, 2026)<short-issue-name-with-dashes>: A brief, descriptive name using lowercase letters and dashes (e.g., migrate-logs-to-direct-api, optimize-pagination-logic, consolidate-nft-tools)Example: .ai/gh_issues/260128-migrate-logs-to-direct-api.md
Write a Markdown document with the following sections:
# [Brief Title of the Improvement]
## Description
[Short description of the improvement - 2-3 sentences summarizing what is being proposed]
## Motivation
[Clear explanation of why this improvement is needed - what problems does it solve, what benefits does it provide]
## Current State
[Description of how things work currently, including any limitations or pain points]
## Proposed Changes
[High-level description of what should change conceptually. Focus on WHAT changes, not HOW to implement them. Avoid step-by-step implementation details, specific file paths, or granular action items. Keep it strategic and outcome-focused.]
## Expected Benefits
[List of concrete benefits that will result from this improvement - can include improved performance, better maintainability, reduced complexity, etc.]
Example of well-formed "Proposed Changes" section:
## Proposed Changes
- Transition the standalone tool to a handler-based architecture consistent with similar tools
- Maintain backward compatibility by preserving the REST API endpoint with deprecation notices
- Consolidate response processing logic within the dispatcher pattern
- Update all references in documentation and integration examples to reflect the new approach
MUST INCLUDE:
MUST NOT INCLUDE:
blockscout_mcp_server/tools/direct_api/handlers/x_handler.py)STYLE GUIDELINES:
PROPOSED CHANGES - GOOD EXAMPLES:
✓ "Consolidate transaction-related tools under a unified dispatcher pattern"
✓ "Deprecate the dedicated tool in favor of the generic direct_api_call interface"
✓ "Preserve existing response processing logic while relocating it to a handler"
✓ "Update documentation to reflect the new tool architecture"
PROPOSED CHANGES - BAD EXAMPLES:
✗ "Create handler module at blockscout_mcp_server/tools/direct_api/handlers/x_handler.py with @register_handler decorator"
✗ "Update REST API in api/routes.py to return deprecation response with 410 status code"
✗ "Remove import of transaction_summary function from server.py"
✗ "Migrate tests: Delete test_transaction_summary.py and create new handler tests"
After creating the file, confirm:
When the user says:
/gh-issue-improvement
You should:
.ai/gh_issues/260128-consolidate-transaction-tools.mdThis skill can document various types of improvements:
direct_api_call handler pattern