Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ai-llm(AI LLM 搜索)

ai-llm 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

ai-llm 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 32,689。

总安装 2,472周安装 101GitHub Stars 60下载 639核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ai-llm(AI LLM 搜索)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public
仓库路径:skills/ai-llm
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill ai-llm
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill ai-llm

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

提供端到端 LLM 系统工程参考,涵盖开发、评估、部署与运维全生命周期。包含指令调优、PEFT/LoRA 微调与 LLM-as-judge 评测方法论。强调生产环境下的成本控制、延迟预算与可靠性设计原则。

安装命令:npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill ai-llm 配套参见 ai-mlops 与 ai-llm-inference 技能以形成完整技术栈。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ai-llm

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill ai-llm;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ai-llm 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public --skill ai-llm。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ai-llm 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ai-llm 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

ai-llm 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

ai-llm 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,472 次,近一周安装 101 次,下载 639 次,GitHub 60 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ai-llm 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ai-llm

AI LLM 搜索 · 本页

2,47260需要联网MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

LLM Development & Engineering — Complete Reference

Build, evaluate, and deploy LLM systems with modern production standards.

This skill covers the full LLM lifecycle:

  • Development: Strategy selection, dataset design, instruction tuning, PEFT/LoRA fine-tuning
  • Evaluation: Automated testing, LLM-as-judge, metrics, rollout gates
  • Deployment: Serving handoff, latency/cost budgeting, reliability patterns (see ai-llm-inference)
  • Operations: Quality monitoring, change management, incident response (see ai-mlops)
  • Safety: Threat modeling, data governance, layered mitigations (NIST AI RMF: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf)

Modern Best Practices (2026):

  • Treat the model as a component with contracts, budgets, and rollback plans (not "magic").
  • Separate core concepts (tokenization, context, training vs adaptation) from implementation choices (providers, SDKs).
  • Gate upgrades with repeatable evals and staged rollout; avoid blind model swaps.
  • Cost-aware engineering: Measure cost per successful outcome, not just cost per token; design tiering/caching early.
  • Security-by-design: Threat model prompt injection, data leakage, and tool abuse; treat guardrails as production code.

For detailed patterns: See Resources and Templates sections below.


Quick Reference

TaskTool/FrameworkCommand/PatternWhen to Use
Choose architecturePrompt vs RAG vs fine-tuneStart simple; add retrieval/adaptation only if neededNew products and migrations
Model selectionScoring matrixQuality/latency/cost/privacy/license weightingProvider changes and procurement
Cost optimizationTiered models + cachingCascade routing, prompt caching, budget guardrailsCost-sensitive production
Fine-tuning ROIROI calculatorBreak-even analysis, TCO comparisonInvestment decisions
Prompt contractsStructured output + constraintsJSON schema, max tokens, refusal rulesReliability and integration
RAG integrationHybrid retrieval + groundingRetrieve → rerank → pack → cite → verifyFresh/large corpora, traceability
Fine-tuningPEFT/LoRA (when justified)Small targeted datasets + regression suiteStable domains, repeated tasks
EvaluationOffline + onlineGolden sets + A/B + canary + monitoringPrevent regressions and drift

Decision Tree: LLM System Architecture

Building LLM application: [Architecture Selection]
    ├─ Need current knowledge?
    │   ├─ Simple Q&A? → Basic RAG (page-level chunking + hybrid retrieval)
    │   └─ Complex retrieval? → Advanced RAG (reranking + contextual retrieval)
    │
    ├─ Need tool use / actions?
    │   ├─ Single task? → Simple agent (ReAct pattern)
    │   └─ Multi-step workflow? → Multi-agent (LangGraph, CrewAI)
    │
    ├─ Static behavior sufficient?
    │   ├─ Quick MVP? → Prompt engineering (CI/CD integrated)
    │   └─ Production quality? → Fine-tuning (PEFT/LoRA)
    │
    └─ Best results?
        └─ Hybrid (RAG + Fine-tuning + Agents) → Comprehensive solution

See Decision Matrices for detailed selection criteria.


Cost-Quality Decision Framework

LLM spend is driven by usage-based inference (tokens/requests) plus supporting infra and engineering. Model selection is a cost-quality-latency-risk tradeoff.

Model Tier Strategy

| Tier | Typical profile | Use For | |------|--------|------|---------| | Value | Small/fast models | High-volume, simple tasks | | Balanced | General-purpose models | Most production workloads | | Premium | Frontier/large models | Hardest tasks, low volume |

Cost Optimization Levers

  1. Model tiering: Route simple requests to cheaper models (often large savings at scale)
  2. Prompt caching: Reuse stable prefixes/context (provider-specific discounts and constraints)
  3. Prompt optimization: Compress examples and instructions (typically meaningful token reduction)
  4. Output limits: Set appropriate max_tokens (prevents runaway costs)

When to Fine-Tune (ROI-Based)

Fine-tuning pays off when:

  • Volume justifies it: >10k requests/month provides meaningful cost savings
  • Domain is stable: Requirements unchanged for >6 months
  • Data exists: >1,000 quality training examples available
  • Break-even achievable: <12 months to recover investment

See Cost Economics for TCO modeling and Fine-Tuning ROI Calculator for investment analysis.


Core Concepts (Vendor-Agnostic)

  • Model classes: encoder-only, decoder-only, encoder-decoder, multimodal; choose based on task and latency.
  • Tokenization & limits: context window, max output, and prompt/template overhead drive both cost and tail latency.
  • Adaptation options: prompting → retrieval → adapters (LoRA) → full fine-tune; choose by stability and ROI (LoRA: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685).
  • Evaluation: metrics must map to user value; report uncertainty and slice performance, not only global averages.
  • Governance: data retention, residency, licensing, and auditability are product requirements (EU AI Act: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj; NIST GenAI Profile: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.600-1.pdf).

Implementation Practices (Tooling Examples)

  • Use a provider abstraction (gateway/router) to enable fallbacks and staged upgrades.
  • Instrument requests with tokens, latency, and error classes (OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/semconv/gen-ai/).
  • Maintain prompt/model registries with versioning, changelogs, and rollback criteria.

Do / Avoid

Do

  • Do pin model + prompt versions in production, and re-run evals before any change.
  • Do enforce budgets at the boundary: max tokens, max tools, max retries, max cost.
  • Do plan for degraded modes (smaller model, cached answers, “unable to answer”).

Avoid

  • Avoid model sprawl (unowned variants with no eval coverage).
  • Avoid blind upgrades based on anecdotal quality; require measured impact.
  • Avoid training on production logs without consent, governance, and leakage controls.

When to Use This Skill

Claude should invoke this skill when the user asks about:

  • LLM preflight/project checklists, production best practices, or data pipelines
  • Building or deploying RAG, agentic, or prompt-based LLM apps
  • Prompt design, chain-of-thought (CoT), ReAct, or template patterns
  • Troubleshooting LLM hallucination, bias, retrieval issues, or production failures
  • Evaluating LLMs: benchmarks, multi-metric eval, or rollout/monitoring
  • LLMOps: deployment, rollback, scaling, resource optimization
  • Technology stack selection (models, vector DBs, frameworks)
  • Production deployment strategies and operational patterns

Scope Boundaries (Use These Skills for Depth)


Resources (Best Practices & Operational Patterns)

Comprehensive operational guides with checklists, patterns, and decision frameworks:

Core Operational Patterns

- Pricing/discount assumptions (verify against current provider docs) - Cost-quality tradeoff framework and decision matrix - Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) calculation - Fine-tuning ROI framework and break-even analysis - Prompt caching economics - Cost monitoring and budget guardrails

- AI engineering stack selection matrix - Feature/Training/Inference (FTI) pipeline blueprint - Performance budgeting and goodput gates - Progressive complexity (prompt → RAG → fine-tune → hybrid)

- LLM lifecycle checklist (modern production standards) - Data & training, RAG pipeline, deployment & serving - Safety/guardrails, evaluation, agentic systems - Reliability & data infrastructure (DDIA-grade) - Weekly production tasks

- Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting - ReAct (Reason + Act) pattern - RAG pipeline (minimal to advanced) - Agentic planning loop - Self-reflection and multi-agent collaboration

- RAG type decision matrix (naive → advanced → modular) - Production evaluation table with targets and actions - Model selection matrix (tier-based, vendor-agnostic) - Vector database, embedding model, framework selection - Deployment strategy matrix

- Data leakage, prompt dilution, RAG context overload - Agentic runaway, over-engineering, ignoring evaluation - Hard-coded prompts, missing observability - Detection methods and prevention code examples

Domain-Specific Patterns

Emerging Patterns

Note: Each resource file includes preflight/validation checklists, copy-paste reference tables, inline templates, anti-patterns, and decision matrices.


Templates (Copy-Paste Ready)

Production templates by use case and technology:

Selection & Governance

RAG Pipelines

  • Basic RAG - Simple retrieval-augmented generation
  • Advanced RAG - Hybrid retrieval, reranking, contextual embeddings

Prompt Engineering

Agentic Workflows

Data Pipelines

Deployment

Evaluation


Shared Utilities (Centralized patterns — extract, don't duplicate)


Trend Awareness Protocol

IMPORTANT: For “best/latest” recommendations, verify recency using current sources (official docs/release notes/benchmarks). If you can’t browse, state assumptions and ask for timeframe + constraints.

Trigger Conditions

  • "What's the best LLM model for [use case]?"
  • "What should I use for [RAG/fine-tuning/agents]?"
  • "What's the latest in LLM development?"
  • "Current best practices for [prompting/evaluation/deployment]?"
  • "Is [model/framework] still relevant in 2026?"
  • "[Model A] vs [Model B]?" or "[Framework A] vs [Framework B]?"
  • "Best vector database for [use case]?"
  • "What agent framework should I use?"

Minimal Verification Checklist

  1. Confirm user constraints: latency, cost, privacy/compliance, deployment target, and toolchain.
  2. Check at least 2 authoritative sources from data/sources.json (provider docs, release notes, pricing/quotas, deprecations).
  3. Prefer stable guidance (tradeoffs + decision criteria) over “one best model/framework”.

What to Report

After searching, provide:

  • Current landscape: What models/frameworks are popular NOW (not 6 months ago)
  • Emerging trends: New models, frameworks, or techniques gaining traction
  • Deprecated/declining: Models/frameworks losing relevance or support
  • Recommendation: Based on fresh data, not just static knowledge

Example Topics (verify with fresh sources)

  • Latest frontier models (GPT-4.5, Claude 4, Gemini 2.x, Llama 4)
  • Agent frameworks (LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, Semantic Kernel)
  • Vector databases (Pinecone, Qdrant, Weaviate, pgvector)
  • RAG techniques (contextual retrieval, agentic RAG, graph RAG)
  • Inference engines (vLLM, TensorRT-LLM, SGLang)
  • Evaluation frameworks (RAGAS, DeepEval, Braintrust)

Related Skills

This skill integrates with complementary Claude Code skills:

Core Dependencies

  • ai-rag - Retrieval pipelines: chunking, hybrid search, reranking, evaluation
  • ai-prompt-engineering - Systematic prompt design, evaluation, testing, and optimization
  • ai-agents - Agent architectures, tool use, multi-agent systems, autonomous workflows

Production & Operations

  • ai-llm-inference - Production serving, quantization, batching, GPU optimization
  • ai-mlops - Deployment, monitoring, incident response, security, and governance

External Resources

See data/sources.json for 50+ curated authoritative sources:

  • Official LLM platform docs - OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Mistral, Azure OpenAI, AWS Bedrock
  • Open-source models and frameworks - HuggingFace Transformers, open-weight models, PEFT/LoRA, distributed training/inference stacks
  • RAG frameworks and vector DBs - LlamaIndex, LangChain 1.2+, LangGraph, LangGraph Studio v2, Haystack, Pinecone, Qdrant, Chroma
  • Agent frameworks (examples) - LangGraph, Semantic Kernel, AutoGen, CrewAI
  • RAG innovations (examples) - Graph-based retrieval, hybrid retrieval, online evaluation loops
  • Prompt engineering - Anthropic Prompt Library, Prompt Engineering Guide, CoT/ReAct patterns
  • Evaluation and monitoring - OpenAI Evals, HELM, Anthropic Evals, LangSmith, W&B, Arize Phoenix
  • Production deployment - Model gateways/routers, self-hosted serving, managed endpoints

Usage

For New Projects

  1. Start with Production Checklists - Validate all pre-deployment requirements
  2. Use Decision Matrices - Select technology stack
  3. Reference Project Planning Patterns - Design FTI pipeline
  4. Implement with Common Design Patterns - Copy-paste code examples
  5. Avoid Anti-Patterns - Learn from common mistakes

For Troubleshooting

  1. Check Anti-Patterns - Identify failure modes and mitigations
  2. Use Decision Matrices - Evaluate if architecture fits use case
  3. Reference Common Design Patterns - Verify implementation correctness

For Ongoing Operations

  1. Follow Production Checklists - Weekly operational tasks
  2. Integrate Evaluation Patterns - Continuous quality monitoring
  3. Apply LLMOps Best Practices - Deployment and rollback procedures

Navigation Summary

Quick Decisions: Decision Matrices Pre-Deployment: Production Checklists Planning: Project Planning Patterns Implementation: Common Design Patterns Troubleshooting: Anti-Patterns

Domain Depth: LLMOps | Evaluation | Prompts | Agents | RAG

Templates: assets/ - Copy-paste ready production code

Sources: data/sources.json - Authoritative documentation links


Fact-Checking

  • Use web search/web fetch to verify current external facts, versions, pricing, deadlines, regulations, or platform behavior before final answers.
  • Prefer primary sources; report source links and dates for volatile information.
  • If web access is unavailable, state the limitation and mark guidance as unverified.

平台分布

Claude Code

26.83%
按下载量换算171

Cursor

21.29%
按下载量换算136

Gemini CLI

18.44%
按下载量换算118

Antigravity

14.1%
按下载量换算90

OpenCode

8.28%
按下载量换算53

github-copilot

3.36%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills