菜单
Apply to multi-step work (sweeps, migrations, runs of similar edits) and to how you stack commits and PRs. Break work into small units that each end in a verifiable state, check each before the next, and order delivery so the sequence proves itself to a reviewer.
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
Create a researched, durable, approval-gated goal contract whose verification tools, repository-vault authentication, exact proof steps, rollout safety, and evidence lifecycle are ready before execution. Use when the user asks to set, create, refine, save, or verify a goal; asks whether an agent has everything needed to prove completion; wants a proof-driven alternative to a raw `/goal`; or explicitly invokes `$verify-goal`.
Relentlessly interview the user in dependency-aware batches to sharpen a plan, decision, design, idea, codebase change, or bug fix. Use when the user wants to get grilled, investigate a bug from a ticket or screenshots, pass unfinished grilling to a teammate, or pick it up from a PR. Begin each session by choosing native dialogs or one full text batch, then Sideshow or experimental Grill Visuals for live diagrams. In repositories, inspect current behavior, run a mandatory gap and blast-radius pass, and maintain durable decision docs as answers settle.
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked via Task after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads the rubric from the `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review` skill in the cursor-team-kit plugin.
Validate your code changes through the no-mistakes pipeline - automated code review, tests, lint, docs, push, PR, and CI - before they reach upstream. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, gate or ship or validate their changes, push safely, asks you to do a task and then validate it, or invokes /no-mistakes.
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the user-invoked skills in this repo.
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
| name | principle-sequence-verifiable-units |
| description | Apply to multi-step work (sweeps, migrations, runs of similar edits) and to how you stack commits and PRs. Break work into small units that each end in a verifiable state, check each before the next, and order delivery so the sequence proves itself to a reviewer. |
Order work as a sequence of small units, each ending in a state you can check, and don't advance until the current one is green. The same discipline runs at two altitudes, how you execute and how you deliver.
Why: A break caught at the unit that caused it is cheap to localize. A break caught after a batch is buried, and you have already built further on a broken base. Sequencing those same units into a delivery a reviewer can replay turns "trust me" into "watch it go red, then green."
Execution. In a sweep, migration, or any run of similar edits, verify each change before starting the next. Never batch the edits and verify once at the end. Each unit is a before/after bracket: known-good state, one change, run the check, then proceed. Rebase onto clean trunk first so every check measures against the real baseline. When a lever does the edits, the per-unit check is nearly free; run it anyway.
Delivery. Stack commits and PRs in the order that proves the work. The canonical shape is the failing test first, then the fix on top. The first unit shows the bug is real (red), the next shows it resolved (green), so a reviewer sees both the problem and the proof. Other story orders are a subtraction before the reshape, a baseline capture before the treatment, the scaffold before the feature. Each commit lands on its own and the sequence reads as an argument.
Pattern:
This complements brain/principles/prove-it-works.md, which keeps each check real, and principle-build-the-lever, which makes the per-unit check cheap.
