本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

arena

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 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。

Arena

Fan out N parallel attempts at the same task. Read every candidate end to end. Pick the strongest as the base. Graft the best ideas from the others into it. Verify the synthesized result.

Start

Open a todolist with one entry per phase before launching anything. The arena runs autonomously and the list keeps phases from silently disappearing.

  1. Frame
  2. Fan out
  3. Cross-judge
  4. Pick
  5. Graft
  6. Verify

Phase A: Frame

The N candidates will receive the same prompt, so the prompt is the contract. Get it right before spawning anything.

  1. State the artifact each candidate is producing.
  2. Derive the rubric. State what success looks like for this task, then turn it into 3-6 concrete gradeable criteria. Concrete: Adds a --dry-run flag that skips writes. Vague: code is correct. The rubric is the picker's tool in Phase D; candidates only see the task.
  3. Pick the runners. Use the parent model by default. When the host supports model selection, prefer different available model families for judgment-heavy work. Reusing the parent model is fine when generation breadth matters more than model diversity.
  4. Assign output paths. Each candidate writes to its own location (a git worktree where possible, otherwise /tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/). N candidates writing to the same path is shared mutable state and fails the the separate-before-serializing-shared-state principle skill test.

Phase B: Fan out

Use the host's native subagent tool to start all N candidates concurrently. Give each candidate the task, the shared grounding path, its own output path, and instructions to produce both the artifact and a short rationale. If subagents are unavailable or forbidden, produce the candidates sequentially in the same isolated locations before judging them.

The rationale is mandatory. Without it, the parent cannot tell whether a candidate's structure is principled or accidental, which makes Phase E grafting unreliable. Each rationale names the alternatives the candidate considered and what it rejected.

If a candidate fails to produce output, proceed with N-1 and note the dropout in the synthesis record.

Phase C: Cross-judge

After all Phase B candidates complete, use a read-only judge on a different available model family when the host supports it. Otherwise judge inline. The judge sees the rubric and candidates by path label, scores each criterion, and recommends a base with rationale. Never start judging while candidates are still writing.

Phase D: Pick a base

Read every candidate end to end before picking. Skimming N candidates surfaces only the candidate whose surface looks most familiar.

Score each candidate against the rubric criterion by criterion, not on holistic feel. Compare against the cross-judge. Agreement on the base confirms the pick. Disagreement means one of you is biased or the rubric was ambiguous. Read both rationales before deciding.

Pick the base on which candidate a future maintainer can extend most easily without breaking invariants. Prefer the cleaner boundary or smaller surface area when two feel tied, per the Laziness Protocol.

Record the pick and the reason in a short synthesis note alongside the base artifact, including the cross-judge's verdict.

Phase E: Graft

Walk each losing candidate once more and identify what is worth porting into the base. The signal is usually one or two things per candidate, not most of it.

Fold each graft in by hand, per the redesign-from-first-principles principle skill. Don't paste mechanically. The result has to remain coherent under one mental model.

Record what was grafted, from which candidate, and what was rejected and why. The rejection notes are the highest-signal part of the record. Future readers learn from what you considered and dropped, not just what you kept.

When N candidates converge on the same shape, that is a strong agreement signal. Note the convergence in the record and ship the consensus shape. No graft is needed. When N candidates wildly diverge, Phase A was under-specified. Reframe and re-run rather than averaging the divergence.

Phase F: Verify

The synthesized artifact has to hold up under the same scrutiny as any other output, per the prove-it-works principle skill. The arena does not earn you a pass.

If verification surfaces a problem the arena did not catch, either Phase A was wrong (re-frame and re-run) or one candidate caught it and you missed the graft (go back to Phase E). Don't paper over.

Outputs

One synthesized artifact. One short synthesis note alongside, naming the base, the grafts (with source candidate), the rejections, the dropouts if any, and the verification result.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27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', or reviewing a small diff you don't trust.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

bro

無料

Use when the user asks to restate or explain the last message in plain, jargon-free language.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, "make a control skill for this repo", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

Design an auditable playbook when no narrower one fits: a large migration, an ambitious multi-part change, or work a human reviews after stepping away. Scales rigor to the task, runs a hypothesis loop, and logs decisions via show-me-your-work. Use for /figure-it-out, 'figure it out', a large migration, or when no narrower playbook applies.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

how

無料

Explain how a subsystem works, trace a runtime flow, or determine where code and ownership belong before making a change.

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。

painhardcore/pstack62026年8月27日 更新

painhardcore のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する