基于 SOC 职业分类
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。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/ratacat/claude-skills --skill heal-skill命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
Run comprehensive agent-native architecture review with scored principles
Use this agent when reviewing code to ensure features are agent-native - that any action a user can take, an agent can also take, and anything a user can see, an agent can see. This enforces the principle that agents should have parity with users in capability and context. <example>Context: The user added a new feature to their application.\nuser: "I just implemented a new email filtering feature"\nassistant: "I'll use the agent-native-reviewer to verify this feature is accessible to agents"\n<commentary>New features need agent-native review to ensure agents can also filter emails, not just humans through UI.</commentary></example><example>Context: The user created a new UI workflow.\nuser: "I added a multi-step wizard for creating reports"\nassistant: "Let me check if this workflow is agent-native using the agent-native-reviewer"\n<commentary>UI workflows often miss agent accessibility - the reviewer checks for API/tool equivalents.</commentary></example>
Use this agent when you need to create or update README files following the Ankane-style template for Ruby gems. This includes writing concise documentation with imperative voice, keeping sentences under 15 words, organizing sections in the standard order (Installation, Quick Start, Usage, etc.), and ensuring proper formatting with single-purpose code fences and minimal prose. Examples: <example>Context: User is creating documentation for a new Ruby gem. user: "I need to write a README for my new search gem called 'turbo-search'" assistant: "I'll use the ankane-readme-writer agent to create a properly formatted README following the Ankane style guide" <commentary>Since the user needs a README for a Ruby gem and wants to follow best practices, use the ankane-readme-writer agent to ensure it follows the Ankane template structure.</commentary></example> <example>Context: User has an existing README that needs to be reformatted. user: "Can you update my gem's README to follow the Ankane style?" assistant: "Let...
| name | heal-skill |
| description | Fix incorrect SKILL.md files when a skill has wrong instructions or outdated API references |
[object Object]
Analyze the conversation to detect which skill is running, reflect on what went wrong, propose specific fixes, get user approval, then apply changes with optional commit.
Skill detection: !`ls -1 ./skills/*/SKILL.md | head -5`<quick_start>
</quick_start>
Identify the skill from conversation context:Set: SKILL_NAME=[skill-name] and SKILL_DIR=./skills/$SKILL_NAME
If unclear, ask the user. </step_1>
<step_2 name="reflection_and_analysis"> Focus on $ARGUMENTS if provided, otherwise analyze broader context.
Determine:
<step_3 name="scan_affected_files">
ls -la $SKILL_DIR/
ls -la $SKILL_DIR/references/ 2>/dev/null
ls -la $SKILL_DIR/scripts/ 2>/dev/null
</step_3>
<step_4 name="present_proposed_changes"> Present changes in this format:
**Skill being healed:** [skill-name]
**Issue discovered:** [1-2 sentence summary]
**Root cause:** [brief explanation]
**Files to be modified:**
- [ ] SKILL.md
- [ ] references/[file].md
- [ ] scripts/[file].py
**Proposed changes:**
### Change 1: SKILL.md - [Section name]
**Location:** Line [X] in SKILL.md
**Current (incorrect):**
[exact text from current file]
**Corrected:**
[new text]
**Reason:** [why this fixes the issue]
[repeat for each change across all files]
**Impact assessment:**
- Affects: [authentication/API endpoints/parameters/examples/etc.]
**Verification:**
These changes will prevent: [specific error that prompted this]
</step_4>
<step_5 name="request_approval">
Should I apply these changes?
1. Yes, apply and commit all changes
2. Apply but don't commit (let me review first)
3. Revise the changes (I'll provide feedback)
4. Cancel (don't make changes)
Choose (1-4):
Wait for user response. Do not proceed without approval. </step_5>
<step_6 name="apply_changes"> Only after approval (option 1 or 2):
<success_criteria>