principle-foundational-thinking
Apply before writing logic: choosing core types and data structures, sequencing scaffold-vs-feature work, asking what concurrent actors share. Get the data structures right so downstream code becomes obvious.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-12
- Stars
- ★ 1
- Forks
- 1
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- principle-foundational-thinking
- description
- Apply before writing logic: choosing core types and data structures, sequencing scaffold-vs-feature work, asking what concurrent actors share. Get the data structures right so downstream code becomes obvious.
- user-invocable
- false
03 SKILL.md 正文
Foundational Thinking
Structural decisions protect option value. Code-level decisions protect simplicity.
Data structures first. Get the data shape right before writing logic. Define core types early, trace every access pattern, and choose structures that match the dominant paths.
At code level, DRY the structure, not every line. Types and data models should converge. Three similar statements still beat a premature abstraction. Prefer explicit over clever. Test behavior and edge cases, not line counts.
Concurrency corollary. Before sharing state between actors, ask "what happens if another actor modifies this concurrently?" If not "nothing", isolate.
Scaffold first. If something helps every later phase, do it first. Ask "does every subsequent phase benefit from this existing?" CI, linting, test infrastructure, and shared types are scaffold. Sequence for option value: setup before features, tests before fixes. Keep commits small and single-purpose.
Each increment should land a coherent abstraction or deepen one that exists. Do not spread a new capability across callers as special-case coordination.
Subtraction comes before scaffolding. Remove dead code first, then lay foundations.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
code-review
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along five axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?), Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?), Evidence (does each claim in the pull request have evidence that shows it?), Bugs (does the changed code have logic errors, unhandled states, races, or regressions?), and Security (does the change open injection, auth, secret, input, or CI workflow holes?). Runs the reviews in parallel sub-agents, tags every finding Important, Nit, or Pre-existing, and reports them side by side with what blocks merge. Given an earlier reviewed head and its findings, it reviews only the newer commits, rechecks the earlier findings, and never repeats one. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
writing-for-pstack
Write or tighten an operator prompt for a patina-mode run. Use when the operator asks to write, revise, or review a prompt that will be passed to patina-mode.
writing-for-agents
Writing documents for agents. Use when creating or editing skills, or modifying AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md.
wizard
Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform. Use when provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, or running a one-off migration or cutover. Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself.
wayfinder
Plan a huge chunk of work (more than one agent session can hold) as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear.
wait-what
Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it.