一键导入
karpathy
Execution-layer quality rules for implementation work. Active after a P10 plan reaches status: approved. Governs how code is written, not what is built.
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
Execution-layer quality rules for implementation work. Active after a P10 plan reaches status: approved. Governs how code is written, not what is built.
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
Convene a tiered LLM council to deliberate on engineering decisions, architecture choices, refactor strategies, PR reviews, prioritization calls, or any problem with meaningful trade-offs. Integrates with gstack's role-driven workflow and Claude Code subagents. Trigger on: "council this", "what should we do", "which approach", "help me decide", "weigh the options", any architectural/technical decision with long-term consequences, or any gstack phase (plan → review → ship) where a cross-role deliberation would improve the outcome. Prefer this over single-model answers when stakes of getting it wrong are non-trivial. All council sessions are logged to Obsidian as Congressional Records.
Apply NASA's Power of 10 safety rules as a pre-execution planning contract for any engineering task. Use this skill before writing or modifying code whenever a task has been defined (via gstack, /council ruling, or direct issue). The skill researches the codebase, drafts a P10-compliant implementation plan (full task or named stage), saves it to Obsidian, and provides a decision overview. The saved draft becomes the foundation the execution agent reads before touching any file. Trigger on: "plan this with p10", "p10 draft", "bridge to execution", "safe implementation plan", any task following a /council ruling, or any gstack /plan phase where correctness and safety are non-trivial. This is the bridge between planning and elite execution — always invoke it before implementing complex, stateful, or safety-critical logic.
The final voice before release. Convenes three equal-seated luminaries — Garry Tan, Richard Feynman, Andrej Karpathy — to judge release readiness. Each seat returns an independent SHIP / CONDITIONAL / BLOCK verdict; any seat can veto a release by naming a release-critical defect. Trigger on "/cabinet", "convene the cabinet", "cabinet this", or any release/tag/v-number gate (e.g. "ready for v1.0.0?") after the build/review/ship stack has run. This is the last gate before a tagged release — it does not replace /review, /plan-eng-review, or /ship; it ratifies them.
Use as reference guide for strangler pattern implementation. Provides patterns and best practices for legacy migrations.
Drag Reduction System — ambient PreToolUse tripwire that fires deterministically on boundary violations. Not a slash command. Hooks into every tool call automatically.
Adversarial stress test of an approved P10 plan. Fires after Opus approval, before any file is touched. One Sonnet agent with one job — find how this plan fails.
| name | karpathy |
| description | Execution-layer quality rules for implementation work. Active after a P10 plan reaches status: approved. Governs how code is written, not what is built. |
Trigger: /karpathy, or invoked automatically when a P10 plan reaches status: approved and implementation begins.
These are execution invariants — not a review checklist, not a one-time step. They run continuously during every stage of implementation. P10 gates the structure. Karpathy governs the execution.
The four rules are derived from Andrej Karpathy's public writing on software craftsmanship, particularly his emphasis on working code over confident code, simplicity over cleverness, and verification over assumption.
Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs.
Before touching any file in a P10 stage:
The failure mode this prevents: an agent that charges forward on a plausible but wrong interpretation, produces 200 lines of code, and then surfaces the ambiguity in a post-hoc explanation. That is not execution — it is rationalization.
Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative.
The test: would a senior engineer reading this cold say it is overcomplicated? If yes, simplify. Complexity that cannot be justified by the stage spec does not belong in the diff.
Touch only what the P10 stage authorizes. Clean up only your own mess.
When editing existing code:
When your changes create orphans:
The test: every changed line traces directly to a named stage in the approved P10 plan. If a line can't be traced, it doesn't belong in this commit.
Define success criteria per stage. Loop until verified.
Before implementing each P10 stage, map it to verifiable goals:
Stage N: [name from P10 plan]
1. [step] → verify: [assertion or return-value check from the plan]
2. [step] → verify: [assertion or return-value check from the plan]
Don't move to the next stage until the current stage's criteria are met — not "should be working," not "looks right." Met means: tests pass, assertions hold, return values match the plan spec.
If a stage's verification criteria are unclear, stop and surface the ambiguity before writing code. A strong success criterion is what lets execution loop independently without human confirmation at every step.
/council → deliberate on what to build (Haiku scouts → Sonnet analysts → Opus ruling)
/p10 → plan how to build it safely (Opus must approve before any file is touched)
karpathy → govern how each stage is executed (these four rules, continuously)
/cabinet → ratify the release (three Opus seats, unanimous-to-ship)
Karpathy sits between P10 approval and Cabinet ratification. It is the execution contract. The P10 plan tells you what stages to implement and in what order. Karpathy tells you how to behave while implementing each one.
You rarely need to invoke /karpathy directly — the rules are active whenever a P10 plan is approved. Invoke it explicitly when:
/council ruling resolves it