[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M7135ZAX5QY0MSA5SH07B3GW":3,"skill-same:01M7135ZAX5QY0MSA5SH07B3GW":79},{"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":45,"linkOnly":46,"markdownContent":47,"markdownBody":48,"frontMatter":49,"refName":50,"commitSha":51,"skillDirectory":52,"forksCount":53,"repositoryHtmlUrl":54,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":55,"ownerBlogUrl":56,"ownerDescription":57,"updatedAt":58,"install":59,"resources":72},"01M7135ZAX5QY0MSA5SH07B3GW","writing-plans",null,"Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code","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\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fdb4304c0a18fb985\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23,26],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","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},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44],"plans","writing","writing plans","for","use","when","you","requirements","code","task","multi","spec","multi-step task","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: writing-plans\ndescription: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code\n---\n\n# Writing Plans\n\n## Overview\n\nWrite comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.\n\nAssume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.\n\n**Announce at start:** \"I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan.\"\n\n**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.\n\n**Save plans to:** `docs\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fplans\u002FYYYY-MM-DD-\u003Cfeature-name>.md`\n- (User preferences for plan location override this default)\n\n## Scope Check\n\nIf the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.\n\n## File Structure\n\nBefore defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.\n\n- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.\n- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.\n- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.\n- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.\n\nThis structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.\n\n## Bite-Sized Task Granularity\n\n**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**\n- \"Write the failing test\" - step\n- \"Run it to make sure it fails\" - step\n- \"Implement the minimal code to make the test pass\" - step\n- \"Run the tests and make sure they pass\" - step\n- \"Commit\" - step\n\n## Plan Document Header\n\n**Every plan MUST start with this header:**\n\n```markdown\n# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan\n\n> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.\n\n**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]\n\n**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]\n\n**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies\u002Flibraries]\n\n---\n```\n\n## Task Structure\n\n````markdown\n### Task N: [Component Name]\n\n**Files:**\n- Create: `exact\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Ffile.py`\n- Modify: `exact\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Fexisting.py:123-145`\n- Test: `tests\u002Fexact\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Ftest.py`\n\n- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**\n\n```python\ndef test_specific_behavior():\n    result = function(input)\n    assert result == expected\n```\n\n- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**\n\nRun: `pytest tests\u002Fpath\u002Ftest.py::test_name -v`\nExpected: FAIL with \"function not defined\"\n\n- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**\n\n```python\ndef function(input):\n    return expected\n```\n\n- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**\n\nRun: `pytest tests\u002Fpath\u002Ftest.py::test_name -v`\nExpected: PASS\n\n- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**\n\n```bash\ngit add tests\u002Fpath\u002Ftest.py src\u002Fpath\u002Ffile.py\ngit commit -m \"feat: add specific feature\"\n```\n````\n\n## No Placeholders\n\nEvery step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:\n- \"TBD\", \"TODO\", \"implement later\", \"fill in details\"\n- \"Add appropriate error handling\" \u002F \"add validation\" \u002F \"handle edge cases\"\n- \"Write tests for the above\" (without actual test code)\n- \"Similar to Task N\" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)\n- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)\n- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task\n\n## Remember\n- Exact file paths always\n- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code\n- Exact commands with expected output\n- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits\n\n## Self-Review\n\nAfter writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.\n\n**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section\u002Frequirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.\n\n**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the \"No Placeholders\" section above. Fix them.\n\n**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.\n\nIf you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.\n\n## Execution Handoff\n\nAfter saving the plan, offer execution choice:\n\n**\"Plan complete and saved to `docs\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fplans\u002F\u003Cfilename>.md`. Two execution options:**\n\n**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration\n\n**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints\n\n**Which approach?\"**\n\n**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**\n- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development\n- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review\n\n**If Inline Execution chosen:**\n- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans\n- Batch execution with checkpoints for review\n","# Writing Plans\n\n## Overview\n\nWrite comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.\n\nAssume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.\n\n**Announce at start:** \"I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan.\"\n\n**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.\n\n**Save plans to:** `docs\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fplans\u002FYYYY-MM-DD-\u003Cfeature-name>.md`\n- (User preferences for plan location override this default)\n\n## Scope Check\n\nIf the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.\n\n## File Structure\n\nBefore defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.\n\n- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.\n- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.\n- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.\n- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.\n\nThis structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.\n\n## Bite-Sized Task Granularity\n\n**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**\n- \"Write the failing test\" - step\n- \"Run it to make sure it fails\" - step\n- \"Implement the minimal code to make the test pass\" - step\n- \"Run the tests and make sure they pass\" - step\n- \"Commit\" - step\n\n## Plan Document Header\n\n**Every plan MUST start with this header:**\n\n```markdown\n# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan\n\n> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.\n\n**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]\n\n**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]\n\n**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies\u002Flibraries]\n\n---\n```\n\n## Task Structure\n\n````markdown\n### Task N: [Component Name]\n\n**Files:**\n- Create: `exact\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Ffile.py`\n- Modify: `exact\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Fexisting.py:123-145`\n- Test: `tests\u002Fexact\u002Fpath\u002Fto\u002Ftest.py`\n\n- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**\n\n```python\ndef test_specific_behavior():\n    result = function(input)\n    assert result == expected\n```\n\n- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**\n\nRun: `pytest tests\u002Fpath\u002Ftest.py::test_name -v`\nExpected: FAIL with \"function not defined\"\n\n- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**\n\n```python\ndef function(input):\n    return expected\n```\n\n- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**\n\nRun: `pytest tests\u002Fpath\u002Ftest.py::test_name -v`\nExpected: PASS\n\n- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**\n\n```bash\ngit add tests\u002Fpath\u002Ftest.py src\u002Fpath\u002Ffile.py\ngit commit -m \"feat: add specific feature\"\n```\n````\n\n## No Placeholders\n\nEvery step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:\n- \"TBD\", \"TODO\", \"implement later\", \"fill in details\"\n- \"Add appropriate error handling\" \u002F \"add validation\" \u002F \"handle edge cases\"\n- \"Write tests for the above\" (without actual test code)\n- \"Similar to Task N\" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)\n- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)\n- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task\n\n## Remember\n- Exact file paths always\n- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code\n- Exact commands with expected output\n- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits\n\n## Self-Review\n\nAfter writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.\n\n**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section\u002Frequirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.\n\n**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the \"No Placeholders\" section above. Fix them.\n\n**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.\n\nIf you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.\n\n## Execution Handoff\n\nAfter saving the plan, offer execution choice:\n\n**\"Plan complete and saved to `docs\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fplans\u002F\u003Cfilename>.md`. Two execution options:**\n\n**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration\n\n**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints\n\n**Which approach?\"**\n\n**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**\n- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development\n- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review\n\n**If Inline Execution chosen:**\n- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans\n- Batch execution with checkpoints for review\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"mine","1e7390741dffd3d5041fca4ebc056071ee3ba137","archives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fdb4304c0a18fb985\u002Fwriting-plans",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":60,"prompt":70,"zipAvailable":71},[61,64,67],{"tool":62,"command":63},"npx","npx skills add EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub --skill writing-plans",{"tool":65,"command":66},"bunx","bunx skills add EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub --skill writing-plans",{"tool":68,"command":69},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add EthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub --skill writing-plans","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Farchives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fdb4304c0a18fb985\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",true,[73],{"path":74,"resourceType":75,"resourceTypeDesc":76,"sizeBytes":77,"sourceHtmlUrl":78},"plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",1714,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FEthanYoQ\u002FSkill-hub\u002Fblob\u002Fmine\u002Farchives\u002Fuser-installed-skills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fdb4304c0a18fb985\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fplan-document-reviewer-prompt.md",[80,106,134,157,175,190],{"skillNo":81,"name":82,"nameZh":6,"description":83,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":84,"categories":85,"keywords":87,"publishedAt":45},"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",[86],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[88,89,90,91,92,93,37,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,35,104,105],"social","xhs pharma social listening","social listening","xhs","medical","counting","collection","batch","analyze","notes","run","opencli","fallback","captcha","agent reach","evidence","collect","produce",{"skillNo":107,"name":108,"nameZh":6,"description":109,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":110,"categories":111,"keywords":116,"publishedAt":45},"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",[112,113],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":114,"categoryName":115,"taxonomyType":29,"taxonomyTypeDesc":30},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",[117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,37,125,40,126,127,128,129,130,35,131,132,133],"healthcare","phi","compliance","healthcare phi compliance","pii","compliance patterns","information","access","encryption","common","audit","data","patterns","Access Control","system","applications","Auditing Access Control",{"skillNo":135,"name":136,"nameZh":6,"description":137,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":138,"categories":139,"keywords":141,"publishedAt":45},"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",[140],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[117,142,143,144,145,146,147,37,148,149,150,151,118,35,152,153,154,155,36,156],"eval","harness","healthcare eval harness","eval harness","clinical","patient","workflow","Evaluation","Safety","integrity","deployment","accuracy","tests","deployments","super",{"skillNo":158,"name":159,"nameZh":6,"description":160,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":161,"categories":162,"keywords":164,"publishedAt":45},"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",[163],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[117,165,129,166,167,92,146,168,37,169,170,171,150,128,172,173,174,35,132,36],"EMR","healthcare emr patterns","decision","workflows","support","clinical decision support","features","ui","as","development",{"skillNo":176,"name":177,"nameZh":6,"description":178,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":179,"categories":180,"keywords":182,"publishedAt":45},"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",[181],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[117,129,183,167,146,165,168,37,184,185,169,170,186,174,131,187,36,188,156,189],"healthcare cdss patterns","scoring","interaction","severity","classification","alert","decision support",{"skillNo":191,"name":192,"nameZh":6,"description":193,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":194,"categories":195,"keywords":197,"publishedAt":45},"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",[196],{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[198,199,41,200,201,202,203,204],"clarify","dxy task clarify","pptx","整理","翻译","数据","总结"]