[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M71CFGS93M91C0J7SSPXM1NS":3,"skill-same:01M71CFGS93M91C0J7SSPXM1NS":81},{"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":28,"publishedAt":44,"linkOnly":45,"markdownContent":46,"markdownBody":47,"frontMatter":48,"refName":49,"commitSha":50,"skillDirectory":51,"forksCount":52,"repositoryHtmlUrl":53,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":54,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":55,"updatedAt":56,"install":57,"resources":70},"01M71CFGS93M91C0J7SSPXM1NS","writing-plans",null,"Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code","nexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os","nexuslinkproductions","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F273246263?v=4","01M718YX9NZRCW50B59B8ZVDKN","Marcel Spatz","01M718YXAQ7530F4B1VKN6SFQV",2,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43],"plans","writing","writing plans","harness","for","use","when","workflow","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\nscope: harness\ninvocation: workflow\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\n## Session Notes\n\n### 2026-06-13\n- session: 116m | peak ctx: 0% | compacts: 0\n- tools: Bash×947, Read×345, Edit×171, StructuredOutput×82, Write×63, TodoWrite×25, ToolSearch×8, Workflow×6, Agent×3, ScheduleWakeup×2, TaskStop×1, PushNotification×1, AskUserQuestion×1\n- corrections: rick i have a fun little task for you. I will be giving you the task of going through trending repos on github, scanning them, compare yuri to those, see what we can adopt and rebuild better in yuri u\n- errors: none\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\n## Session Notes\n\n### 2026-06-13\n- session: 116m | peak ctx: 0% | compacts: 0\n- tools: Bash×947, Read×345, Edit×171, StructuredOutput×82, Write×63, TodoWrite×25, ToolSearch×8, Workflow×6, Agent×3, ScheduleWakeup×2, TaskStop×1, PushNotification×1, AskUserQuestion×1\n- corrections: rick i have a fun little task for you. I will be giving you the task of going through trending repos on github, scanning them, compare yuri to those, see what we can adopt and rebuild better in yuri u\n- errors: none\n",{"name":5,"scope":32,"invocation":36,"description":7},"main","4c6d8d65f3d6096e2fc25b0845e481dda73c2794","skills\u002Fwriting-plans",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions","Building deterministic AI governance and continuity systems. Workflow architect + visual storyteller","2026-10-27 02:18:29",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":58,"prompt":68,"zipAvailable":69},[59,62,65],{"tool":60,"command":61},"npx","npx skills add nexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os --skill writing-plans",{"tool":63,"command":64},"bunx","bunx skills add nexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os --skill writing-plans",{"tool":66,"command":67},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add nexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os --skill writing-plans","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",true,[71,77],{"path":72,"resourceType":73,"resourceTypeDesc":74,"sizeBytes":75,"sourceHtmlUrl":76},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",123,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",{"path":78,"resourceType":73,"resourceTypeDesc":74,"sizeBytes":79,"sourceHtmlUrl":80},"plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md",1714,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002Fplan-document-reviewer-prompt.md",[82,100,122,150,177,196],{"skillNo":83,"name":84,"nameZh":6,"description":85,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":86,"categories":87,"keywords":88,"publishedAt":44},"01M71CG1AME5WC0A79AE65WT0X","zoom-out","Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective. Use when you're unfamiliar with a section of code or need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzoom-out\u002FSKILL.md",[],[89,90,91,32,92,93,94,95,96,34,97,35,37,39,98,99],"zoom out","zoom","with","how","section","re","true","understand","perspective","it","context",{"skillNo":101,"name":102,"nameZh":6,"description":103,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":104,"categories":105,"keywords":106,"publishedAt":44},"01M71CFY9ATD0BAXV6B14HFG7C","yuri-shura","6-perspective adversarial review for high-stakes turns (architecture decisions, refactor planning, deployment review) — fans out architect, adversary (7-vector attack), maintainer, ops, product, and security perspectives in parallel, then consolidates. Use when user says 'review this decision', '\u002Fshura', 'adversarial review', 'what could go wrong', 'architecture review', or 'deployment review'.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fyuri-shura\u002FSKILL.md",[],[107,108,32,109,110,33,111,112,113,114,115,34,116,35,36,117,118,119,120,121],"yuri shura","parallel","architecture review","planning","deployment","vector","strategic review","decision","strategic","ops","decisions","architecture","review","perspectives","adversarial",{"skillNo":123,"name":124,"nameZh":6,"description":125,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":126,"categories":127,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":44},"01M71CFTTYW1HA2MNX38EV1GJ5","yuri-sales-intelligence","Unified sales and outreach skill generating cold outreach openers, social selling sequences, objection rebuttals, and ad creative for any paid platform — multi-persona aware, adapting tone and offer frame to buyer type. Use when user says 'write a cold email', 'outreach sequence', 'objection handling', 'ad copy', or 'sales pitch'.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fyuri-sales-intelligence\u002FSKILL.md",[128],{"categoryNo":129,"categoryName":130,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000005","邮件与沟通",[132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,35,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,33,148,149],"intelligence","sales intelligence","yuri sales intelligence","sales","cold","paid","social","persona","pitch","cold email","ad creative","write","sequences","sequence","platform","email","cold outreach","frame",{"skillNo":151,"name":152,"nameZh":6,"description":153,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":154,"categories":155,"keywords":162,"publishedAt":44},"01M71CFQMBFTFADJNGP0Z2WCYK","yuri-code-intelligence","Unified code quality intelligence layer that diagnoses code smells (Long Method, Feature Envy, design pattern issues), prescribes targeted Fowler refactoring techniques, and reviews code for security, performance, and clarity. Use when user says 'review this code', 'refactor this', 'what's wrong with this method', 'code smells', or 'clean this up'.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fyuri-code-intelligence\u002FSKILL.md",[156,159],{"categoryNo":157,"categoryName":158,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":160,"categoryName":161,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师",[163,39,164,132,32,165,166,167,33,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,34,35],"yuri code intelligence","code intelligence","reviews","code quality","feature","performance","code review","long","up","issues","clean","techniques","improve","design",{"skillNo":178,"name":179,"nameZh":6,"description":180,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":181,"categories":182,"keywords":183,"publishedAt":44},"01M71CFP32RT6GD3GKNHCJP8VP","yuri-adw","Invoke when user asks to run the ADW loop \u002F agentic engineering loop \u002F software factory workflow.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fyuri-adw\u002FSKILL.md",[],[184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,35,193,36,194,195],"yuri adw","run","engineering loop","software factory","software","agentic engineering","factory","loop","invoke","engineering","agentic","user",{"skillNo":197,"name":198,"nameZh":6,"description":199,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":200,"categories":201,"keywords":210,"publishedAt":44},"01M71CFK4VPEKY6A73237P7RSN","writing-skills","Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnexuslinkproductions\u002Fyuri-os\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-skills\u002FSKILL.md",[202,205,206,209],{"categoryNo":203,"categoryName":204,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":207,"categoryName":208,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[30,211,212,35,36,213,32,214,111,34,215],"writing skills","new","work","editing","Existing"]