本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

context-map

Scope the real change surface before editing. Use when planning a feature, bugfix, refactor, or review and you need a concrete map of likely touch points, dependencies, tests, and nearby risks.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md6.3 KB
  • CHANGELOG.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Context Map

Build a task-focused map of the codebase before changing files.

  • Leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.

When to Use

Use symptom -> action triggers: when one matches, apply this skill and verify with the protocol below.

  • A request spans more than one file and the impact is not obvious yet.
  • You need to identify the minimum safe edit set before implementation.
  • You are debugging a bug or regression and need to trace nearby code paths.
  • You want a review-quality summary of likely code, test, config, and documentation touch points.

Core Workflow

  1. Restate the change in one sentence.
  2. Search for obvious entry points by feature name, route, symbol, command, or error text.
  3. Expand outward into direct dependencies, tests, docs, config, schemas, and scripts.
  4. Separate likely edit targets from read-only reference patterns.
  5. Call out risk multipliers such as public APIs, migrations, auth, secrets, environment variables, or generated artifacts.
  6. Produce a compact context map before implementation.

Search Order

1. Primary Targets

Look for the files most likely to hold the requested behavior:

  • route handlers, commands, services, jobs, or pages
  • components, helpers, validators, and serializers
  • feature-specific configs, manifests, templates, and generated sources

2. Direct Dependencies

Trace the files that import, export, call, or configure the primary targets:

  • imports and exports
  • DI registration and factory wiring
  • schema or model definitions
  • build or deployment hooks

3. Verification Surface

Find the evidence paths that should move with the change:

  • unit, integration, E2E, and snapshot tests
  • fixtures, golden files, and sample payloads
  • README, usage docs, changelogs, and migration notes

4. Reference Patterns

Find nearby examples that show the house style for the same kind of work:

  • similar endpoints or handlers
  • related UI components
  • existing test patterns
  • prior migrations or config changes

Output Format

Use this structure unless the user asked for a different format:

## Context Map

### Likely Edit Targets
| File | Why it matters | Expected change |
|------|----------------|-----------------|
| path/to/file | Main entry point | Update logic |

### Nearby Dependencies
| File | Relationship |
|------|--------------|
| path/to/file | Imported by the main target |

### Verification Files
| File | Coverage |
|------|----------|
| path/to/test | Existing tests for the feature |

### Reference Patterns
| File | Pattern to reuse |
|------|------------------|
| path/to/example | Similar implementation shape |

### Risks
- Public API or contract may change
- Config, env vars, or generated files may need updates
- Docs or changelog may need to move with the code

Heuristics

  • Prefer the smallest edit set that can fully implement the task.
  • Include tests and docs whenever the behavior or setup might move.
  • Treat migrations, auth, secrets, caching, build scripts, and generated artifacts as high-risk neighbors.
  • If multiple subsystems are involved, split the map by subsystem instead of producing one giant table.
  • Revise the map after discovery if the real scope is materially different from the initial request.

Anti-Patterns

  • Delegating or evaluating without a scoped success condition: The output becomes hard to review and easy to overbuild.
  • Skipping the evidence step: A workflow that cannot be re-checked quickly is not ready for handoff.
  • Bundling unrelated subtasks together: It creates noisy prompts, weaker ownership, and avoidable integration risk.

Verification Protocol

Before claiming "skill applied successfully":

  1. Pass/fail: The Context Map workflow names the agent boundary, delegated scope, and expected return artifact.
  2. Pass/fail: Context passed to helpers is minimal, task-local, and free of hidden expected answers.
  3. Pass/fail: Results are integrated only after evidence, diffs, or citations are checked by the controller.
  4. Pressure-test scenario: Run the workflow on two similar tasks that must not share assumptions or leaked context.
  5. Success metric: Zero context leakage; every delegated output is independently reviewable.

Scripts And References

<!-- MCP:START --> <!-- PORTABILITY:START -->

Cross-Client Portability

This skill is written to stay usable across GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and Codex.

  • GitHub Copilot: keep the folder in a Copilot-visible skill path or wrap the workflow in project instructions when folder discovery is unavailable.
  • Claude Code: keep the folder in a local skills directory or a compatible plugin source.
  • Codex: install or sync the folder into $CODEX_HOME/skills/context-map and restart Codex after major changes.
<!-- PORTABILITY:END -->

MCP Availability And Fallback

Preferred MCP Server: None required

  • Fallback prompt: "Use the Context Map skill without MCP. Rely on the local SKILL.md, bundled references or scripts, and manual verification. Show the exact commands, evidence, and final checks you used before concluding."
  • If the current host does not expose a matching server, use the bundled references, scripts, native toolchain, and manual workflow already described in this skill.
  • Treat direct local verification, rendered output, logs, tests, or screenshots as the fallback evidence path before completion.
<!-- MCP:END -->

Related Skills

  • agent-task-mapping: Use it when the workflow also needs task-to-agent routing decisions.
  • custom-agent-usage: Use it when the workflow also needs loading and invoking custom agent definitions safely.
  • subagent-delegation: Use it when the workflow also needs safe, scoped delegation to helper agents.
  • subagent-driven-development: Use it when the workflow also needs plan-driven implementation with reviewer loops.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

AI-powered adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector design for gene therapy including capsid engineering, promoter selection, and tropism optimization.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS62026年9月8日 更新

Improve the clarity and voice of AI-assisted academic writing (papers, theses, rebuttals) and

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS62026年9月8日 更新

12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. 11 modes (full/plan/outline/revision/revision-coach/abstract/lit-review/format-convert/citation-check/disclosure/rebuttal-audit). 6 paper types, 5 citation formats, bilingual abstracts, LaTeX/DOCX-via-Pandoc/PDF output. Style Calibration + Writing Quality Check + Anti-Patterns with IRON RULE markers. Triggers: write paper, academic paper, guide my paper, parse reviews, audit my rebuttal, check my response draft, AI disclosure, 寫論文, 學術論文, 引導我寫論文, 審查意見, 評估回覆, 논문 작성, 초록 작성, 논문 수정, 논문 계획을 도와줘, 심사 의견 반영, 답변서 점검, AI 사용 고지.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS62026年9月8日 更新

Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS62026年9月8日 更新

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS62026年9月8日 更新

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS62026年9月8日 更新

bg-szy のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する