本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

principle-encode-lessons-in-structure

Apply when you catch yourself writing the same instruction a second time, or notice a recurring correction. Encode the rule as a lint, metadata flag, runtime check, or script instead of more text.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md2.2 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。

Encode Lessons in Structure

Encode recurring fixes in mechanisms (tools, code, metadata, automation) instead of textual instructions. Every error, human correction, and unexpected outcome is a learning signal. Capture it, route it, and close the loop.

Why: Textual instructions are easy to miss. They require the reader to notice, remember, and comply. Structural mechanisms (lint rules, metadata flags, runtime checks, automation scripts) enforce the rule without cooperation.

Pattern: When you catch yourself writing the same instruction a second time:

  1. Ask: can this be a lint rule, a metadata flag, a runtime check, or a script?
  2. If yes, encode it. Delete the instruction
  3. If no (requires judgment), make the instruction more prominent and add an example of the failure mode

Pick the strongest mechanism. When more than one mechanism would work, choose the strongest the situation allows (an unrepresentable state that cannot compile, then a lint or banned API that fails CI, then a canonical helper, then a runtime check), because agents copy whatever the surrounding code already does and a weaker guard becomes the next template.

Corollary: If the fix is structural, only use the structural fix. The instruction is the symptom.

Feedback loop:

  • Capture every correction. When the human intervenes or tests fail, decide if it's a one-off or a pattern.
  • Route to the right layer. One-off -> brain note. Recurring fix -> skill or lint rule. Systemic issue -> principle.
  • Close the loop. Don't just record. Apply now or create a concrete todo.

Anti-patterns:

  • Acknowledging without recording ("I'll keep that in mind" does not persist)
  • Recording without routing (a brain note about a lint rule that should exist is wasted unless the lint rule gets implemented)
  • Fixing without generalizing (fixing one instance while leaving the recurring pattern intact)

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

architect

無料

Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in. Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,7882026年10月11日 更新

arena

無料

Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,7882026年10月11日 更新

Use for "automate me", "create/update/refresh my -mode skill", "turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via plugin-dev:skill-development + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,7882026年10月11日 更新

babysit

無料

Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,7882026年10月11日 更新

Vet a perf measurement (limiter, tuning, limits, errors, repeatability, relevance, and whether the work happened) before you report or act on it. Use when you run a benchmark or report a speedup or regression you measured.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,7882026年10月11日 更新

Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code ('make X public', 'X already handles Y') before you design against that assertion.

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。

michael-denyer/pstack-claude1,7882026年10月11日 更新

michael-denyer のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する