菜单
Use mmcg to ground structural code claims before planning, auditing, criticizing, or researching code. Triggers when an agent needs symbol existence, callers, callees, imports, blast radius, file existence, or stale-index handling.
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。
Turn a design handoff into a task contract that can actually be checked — named source, resolved components, token names instead of raw values, and an explicit list of what stays unverifiable. Use when a Figma frame, mockup, or design spec is handed over for implementation.
Convert a PRD, ticket, or feature request into a task contract that can fail — behaviour split from outcome, product nouns resolved to symbols that exist, unspecified cases surfaced as questions, and success metrics parked where a merge gate cannot wave them through. Use when product writing is handed over for implementation.
Enumerate what a change can reach and what enforces it — privileged operations and their callers, guards and the sites that apply them, and every module that reads a secret — before designing an auth, permission, or secrets change. Feeds the security review; produces a population and a gap list, never a verdict.
Read-only review of whether the tests in a finished change actually prove its behaviour — changed code no test reaches, a test exercising a different path than the one that changed, an assertion edited to match the new output, and a suite that ran nothing. Use after implementation, and whenever a change claims to be covered.
Gather who already depends on a service, handler, or state owner before changing it, and name the runtime gaps the codegraph cannot span. Use before designing a change to an API, queue consumer, background job, migration, or shared state; it feeds the architecture review rather than replacing it.
Read-only review of a finished UI change against the codegraph — a component nothing renders, a props contract changed without its callers, a reinvented component, or a raw value where the design system has a token. Use after implementing React or Vue work; triggers "review this UI change", "check the component", or a finished frontend diff.
| name | mastermind-codegraph-research |
| description | Use mmcg to ground structural code claims before planning, auditing, criticizing, or researching code. Triggers when an agent needs symbol existence, callers, callees, imports, blast radius, file existence, or stale-index handling. |
| metadata | {"version":"0.2.0","authors":["mastermind"],"tags":["workflow","mmcg","codegraph"]} |
The shared structural discovery layer for Mastermind. Claims about symbol existence, indexed callers, imports, and bounded blast radius come from a fresh mmcg result rather than memory. Exact source contracts and runtime behavior come from source reads and tests.
The graph is syntactic evidence: name resolution, dynamic dispatch, reflection, generated code, re-exports, and cross-language edges can reduce precision.
Never name a symbol, file, caller, or blast radius from memory. "I think X exists" is not evidence; mmcg_search X returning a hit is. A spec, audit, or critique built on a guessed symbol fails at the first step that touches real code.
Grep / Read. mmcg doesn't index strings.| Question | Tool |
|---|---|
Does symbol X exist? (get file:line + signature) | mmcg_search |
What calls X? | mmcg_callers |
What does X call? | mmcg_callees |
If I change/rename X, what breaks? (transitive) | mmcg_impact |
| What does file Y import? | mmcg_imports |
Who imports X / this path? | mmcg_imported_by |
| Does this file path exist in the index? | mmcg_files |
| Is the index ready / how stale is it? | mmcg_status |
| String contents / comments / log lines | Grep |
| File-name / extension globs | Glob |
mmcg-first: use the graph to find candidate symbols and impact, then read the source needed for the decision. Re-check with literal search or another source when collisions/precision warnings are present, a security-sensitive path is at stake, a meaningful zero-result could change the decision, or the language feature is outside the graph's precision envelope. Do not repeat equivalent searches when the indexed result already answers a low-risk discovery question.
mmcg_status response → mmcg is unavailable. For a low-risk task, proceed
with source inspection and state the limitation. Stop for user/planner review
only when the missing structural evidence is load-bearing to scope or safety.mmcg_status reports stale files → re-index (mastermind watch, or a fresh index) before trusting structural answers. A stale graph is worse than none: it looks authoritative and is wrong.Whenever you read code or report a structural fact, carry the file:line. Downstream agents (planner, auditor) need precise locations to act — a finding without a citation is unverifiable and gets treated as a guess.
Catch yourself guessing a signature, a path, or a caller count → query the graph
or read the source. Preserve stale, collision, precision, and truncation
metadata with any downstream claim.
For any conclusion that changes scope, risk, or implementation, separate:
high, medium, or low, plus a concrete reason. Never derive
confidence from the number of search hits alone.Do not hide a speculative leap inside an observed-facts paragraph. A zero result means "not found in this index under this query," not "does not exist."