[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M7130DETN0Z3EHPSCD28C22C":3,"skill-same:01M7130DETN0Z3EHPSCD28C22C":86},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":31,"publishedAt":52,"linkOnly":53,"markdownContent":54,"markdownBody":55,"frontMatter":56,"refName":57,"commitSha":58,"skillDirectory":59,"forksCount":60,"repositoryHtmlUrl":61,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":62,"ownerBlogUrl":63,"ownerDescription":64,"updatedAt":65,"install":66,"resources":79},"01M7130DETN0Z3EHPSCD28C22C","code-review",null,"Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue\u002Fspec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\".","EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub","EthanYoQ","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F257484394?v=4","01M70C9QKWR1YS0S7V26DNB18H","Ethan","01M70C9QMER047R5ANZZA6KC2P",11,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Farchives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fcode-review\u002F8baa32a14c668405\u002Fcode-review\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23,26],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":27,"categoryName":28,"taxonomyType":29,"taxonomyTypeDesc":30},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51],"code","review","code review","repo","for","pr","point","parallel","standards","coding","coding standards","issue","merge","progress","work","reports","commit","when","branch","reviews","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: code-review\ndescription: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue\u002Fspec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\".\n---\n\nTwo-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:\n\n- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?\n- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue \u002F spec?\n\nBoth axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.\n\nThe issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `\u002Fsetup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md` is missing.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Pin the fixed point\n\nWhatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.\n\nCapture the diff command once: `git diff \u003Cfixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log \u003Cfixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.\n\nBefore going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse \u003Cfixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.\n\n### 2. Identify the spec source\n\nLook for the originating spec, in this order:\n\n1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md`.\n2. A path the user passed as an argument.\n3. A spec file under `docs\u002F`, `specs\u002F`, or `.scratch\u002F` matching the branch name or feature.\n4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report \"no spec available\".\n\n### 3. Identify the standards sources\n\nAnything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.\n\nOn top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:\n\n- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.\n- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic (\"possible Feature Envy\"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.\n\nEach smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:\n\n- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.\n- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.\n- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.\n- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.\n- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.\n- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`\u002F`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.\n- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.\n- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.\n- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.\n- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.\n- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.\n- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.\n\n### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel\n\n**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The full diff command and commit list.\n- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.\n- The brief: \"Report — per file\u002Fhunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words.\"\n\n**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The diff command and commit list.\n- The path or fetched contents of the spec.\n- The brief: \"Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words.\"\n\nIf the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.\n\n### 5. Aggregate\n\nPresent the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).\n\nEnd with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.\n\n## Why two axes\n\nA change can pass one axis and fail the other:\n\n- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**\n- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**\n\nReporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.\n","Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:\n\n- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?\n- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue \u002F spec?\n\nBoth axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.\n\nThe issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `\u002Fsetup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md` is missing.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Pin the fixed point\n\nWhatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.\n\nCapture the diff command once: `git diff \u003Cfixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log \u003Cfixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.\n\nBefore going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse \u003Cfixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.\n\n### 2. Identify the spec source\n\nLook for the originating spec, in this order:\n\n1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md`.\n2. A path the user passed as an argument.\n3. A spec file under `docs\u002F`, `specs\u002F`, or `.scratch\u002F` matching the branch name or feature.\n4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report \"no spec available\".\n\n### 3. Identify the standards sources\n\nAnything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.\n\nOn top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:\n\n- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.\n- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic (\"possible Feature Envy\"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.\n\nEach smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:\n\n- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.\n- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.\n- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.\n- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.\n- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.\n- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`\u002F`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.\n- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.\n- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.\n- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.\n- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.\n- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.\n- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.\n\n### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel\n\n**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The full diff command and commit list.\n- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.\n- The brief: \"Report — per file\u002Fhunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words.\"\n\n**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The diff command and commit list.\n- The path or fetched contents of the spec.\n- The brief: \"Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words.\"\n\nIf the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.\n\n### 5. Aggregate\n\nPresent the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).\n\nEnd with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.\n\n## Why two axes\n\nA change can pass one axis and fail the other:\n\n- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**\n- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**\n\nReporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"mine","1e7390741dffd3d5041fca4ebc056071ee3ba137","archives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fcode-review\u002F8baa32a14c668405\u002Fcode-review",5,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ","www.orz.md","Part Marketer, Part AI Explorer.","2026-11-07 14:52:29",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":67,"prompt":77,"zipAvailable":78},[68,71,74],{"tool":69,"command":70},"npx","npx skills add EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub --skill code-review",{"tool":72,"command":73},"bunx","bunx skills add EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub --skill code-review",{"tool":75,"command":76},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub --skill code-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Farchives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fcode-review\u002F8baa32a14c668405\u002Fcode-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[80],{"path":81,"resourceType":82,"resourceTypeDesc":83,"sizeBytes":84,"sourceHtmlUrl":85},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",100,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Farchives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fcode-review\u002F8baa32a14c668405\u002Fcode-review\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",[87,113,141,165,183,198],{"skillNo":88,"name":89,"nameZh":6,"description":90,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":91,"categories":92,"keywords":94,"publishedAt":52},"01M713CBDSYARG4PXFXK2R2NNN","xhs-pharma-social-listening","Run evidence-disciplined Xiaohongshu social listening for foreign pharma employee pain points. Use when the user asks to collect and analyze notes\u002Fcomments about pharma companies, aliases, roles, compliance, medical affairs, or AI topics, then produce a cited and scored sampled-insight report. Includes independent-evidence counting, MediaCrawler batch collection, and CAPTCHA\u002F461 fallback to Agent Reach\u002FOpenCLI.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Fskills\u002F10-business-industry\u002Fxhs-pharma-social-listening\u002FSKILL.md",[93],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[95,96,97,98,99,100,49,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,36,111,112],"social","xhs pharma social listening","social listening","xhs","medical","counting","collection","batch","analyze","notes","run","opencli","fallback","captcha","agent reach","evidence","collect","produce",{"skillNo":114,"name":115,"nameZh":6,"description":116,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":117,"categories":118,"keywords":123,"publishedAt":52},"01M713C8Q76ZP0WXXBRAFKS6EE","healthcare-phi-compliance","Protected Health Information (PHI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) compliance patterns for healthcare applications. Covers data classification, access control, audit trails, encryption, and common leak vectors. Use when code touches PHI or PII in a healthcare system, or when auditing access control, audit trails, or leak vectors.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Fskills\u002F10-business-industry\u002Fhealthcare-phi-compliance\u002FSKILL.md",[119,120],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":121,"categoryName":122,"taxonomyType":29,"taxonomyTypeDesc":30},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",[124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,49,132,32,133,134,135,136,137,36,138,139,140],"healthcare","phi","compliance","healthcare phi compliance","pii","compliance patterns","information","access","encryption","common","audit","data","patterns","Access Control","system","applications","Auditing Access Control",{"skillNo":142,"name":143,"nameZh":6,"description":144,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":145,"categories":146,"keywords":148,"publishedAt":52},"01M713C5R2GE43X45T2K75TB76","healthcare-eval-harness","Patient safety evaluation harness for healthcare application deployments. Automated test suites for CDSS accuracy, PHI exposure, clinical workflow integrity, and integration compliance. Blocks deployments on safety failures. Use when a healthcare deployment must be gated on patient-safety tests for CDSS accuracy, PHI exposure, and workflow integrity.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Fskills\u002F10-business-industry\u002Fhealthcare-eval-harness\u002FSKILL.md",[147],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[124,149,150,151,152,153,154,49,155,156,157,158,125,36,159,160,161,162,163,164],"eval","harness","healthcare eval harness","eval harness","clinical","patient","workflow","Evaluation","Safety","integrity","deployment","accuracy","tests","deployments","use","super",{"skillNo":166,"name":167,"nameZh":6,"description":168,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":169,"categories":170,"keywords":172,"publishedAt":52},"01M713C2J17S91VYR7A8M696VR","healthcare-emr-patterns","EMR\u002FEHR development patterns for healthcare applications. Clinical safety, encounter workflows, prescription generation, clinical decision support integration, and accessibility-first UI for medical data entry. Use when building EMR or EHR features such as encounter workflows, prescription generation, or clinical data entry UI.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Fskills\u002F10-business-industry\u002Fhealthcare-emr-patterns\u002FSKILL.md",[171],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[124,173,136,174,175,99,153,176,49,177,178,179,157,135,180,181,182,36,139,163],"EMR","healthcare emr patterns","decision","workflows","support","clinical decision support","features","ui","as","development",{"skillNo":184,"name":185,"nameZh":6,"description":186,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":187,"categories":188,"keywords":190,"publishedAt":52},"01M713BZERTXV0N8X6SW9DDVWZ","healthcare-cdss-patterns","Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) development patterns. Drug interaction checking, dose validation, clinical scoring (NEWS2, qSOFA), alert severity classification, and integration into EMR workflows. Use when building clinical decision support — drug interaction checks, dose validation, clinical scoring, or alert severity.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Fskills\u002F10-business-industry\u002Fhealthcare-cdss-patterns\u002FSKILL.md",[189],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[124,136,191,175,153,173,176,49,192,193,177,178,194,182,138,195,163,196,164,197],"healthcare cdss patterns","scoring","interaction","severity","classification","alert","decision support",{"skillNo":199,"name":200,"nameZh":6,"description":201,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":202,"categories":203,"keywords":205,"publishedAt":52},"01M713BVK3PQR7V4ZKYGMWMXJD","dxy-task-clarify","用户的请求含糊、缺背景、缺资料说明、缺读者或用途时使用。先用少量带选项的追问把任务问清楚，写成任务卡，用户确认后再执行。尤其适用于医生、科研人员和药企各岗位的工作，例如「帮我分析一下这些数据」「帮我准备明天的拜访」「写个总结」「做个 PPT」「回一下这封邮件」「整理一下会议纪要」「整理一下这些文献」「帮我准备下周的讲课」「写个病例汇报」「帮我写个提示词」。用户说「先问我」「帮我理清需求」「我不知道怎么描述」「我不会问 AI」时也使用。用途、资料、读者都已说清的请求，纯翻译，以及写代码、改代码，不使用。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Fskills\u002F10-business-industry\u002Fdxy-task-clarify\u002FSKILL.md",[204],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213],"clarify","dxy task clarify","task","pptx","整理","翻译","数据","总结"]