Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

assemble-panel(组装面板)

assemble-panel 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。

assemble-panel 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,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,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 23,283。

总安装 4,308周安装 176GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 1,394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
unknown

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:assemble-panel(组装面板)
来源仓库:https://github.com/camacho/ai-skills
仓库路径:skills/assemble-panel
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/camacho/ai-skills --skill assemble-panel
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。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/camacho/ai-skills --skill assemble-panel

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。

assemble-panel 用于集中管理评审者选择与循环治理策略,返回结构化面板与执行策略。适用于代码审查、计划评审等需要多角色协同的质量保障场景。它根据作用域(计划文件或 git diff)生成有序评审队列与优先级、数量控制策略。

默认 fallback 为 technical-editor 与 code-reviewer,确保在无配置时仍有基本评审能力。调用方负责实际派发与结果处理,本技能仅产出数据不执行文件修改或外部调用。

来源仓库内路径:skills/assemble-panel

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/camacho/ai-skills --skill assemble-panel;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

assemble-panel 怎么安装?

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

assemble-panel 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。

assemble-panel 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

assemble-panel 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

assemble-panel 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 4,308 次,近一周安装 176 次,下载 1,394 次。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。

assemble-panel 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。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 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。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 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
assemble-panel

组装面板 · 本页

4,308—只读未明确通过

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

Assemble Panel

Centralizes reviewer selection and loop governance. Returns a panel + policy to the caller; the caller dispatches. This skill produces data — it never dispatches agents or modifies files.

Integration Contract

Callers provide:

  • scope: a plan file path OR a git diff (the artifact under review)
  • overrides (optional): {include: [], exclude: []}

Returns (structured text the caller parses):

  • panel: ordered list of reviewer agent names
  • policy: gate, cap, and the algebra below

Fallback when unavailable: [technical-editor, code-reviewer], gate=P2, cap=3.

Cross-tool note: Codex/Cursor cannot invoke skills via the Skill tool. Read this file directly and apply the policy algebra inline.

Policy Algebra (frozen — do not modify, version: 1)

DEFAULTS:
  gate    = P2                       # fix P0-P2, record P3+
  cap     = 3                        # max rounds before escalate
  always  = [technical-editor]       # expandable, never reducible

ASSEMBLE(scope: plan_file | diff):
  panel = always
        + select_by_scope(file_types(scope))
        + select_by_keywords(body(scope))
        + overrides.include
        - overrides.exclude            # cannot remove `always` members

RETAIN(reviewer, round_findings):
  keep(reviewer) while round_findings.any_above(gate)

EXPAND(panel, prior_scope, current_scope):
  new_coverage = file_types(current_scope) - file_types(prior_scope)
  panel += select_by_scope(new_coverage) when new_coverage

CONVERGE(round, panel, cap):
  APPROVE   when all(reviewer.done for reviewer in panel)
  ESCALATE  when round >= cap
  EXIT      when any(reviewer.verdict == DROP)
  continue  otherwise

ESCALATE_RECURRING(finding, rounds_present):
  finding.severity += 1 when rounds_present >= 2

Scope-to-Reviewer Map

Used by select_by_scope(file_types):

File patternReviewer
.ts, .js, src/, tests/code-reviewer
.yml, .github/workflows/code-reviewer, security-auditor
.sh, scripts/, hooks/code-reviewer, security-auditor
.md (plans, ADRs, docs)architect-reviewer
*.css, *.tsx, UI componentsdesign-reviewer, accessibility-tester
sync.sh, AGENTS.md, config.toml, skillscodex-specialist
*.pem, *.key, secrets patternssecurity-auditor

When multiple patterns match, union all reviewers. Duplicates collapsed.

Keyword-to-Reviewer Map

Used by select_by_keywords(body):

Keyword / phraseReviewer
"architecture", "ADR", "system design", "plan"architect-reviewer
"security", "auth", "token", "PAT", "OIDC"security-auditor
"WCAG", "accessibility", "a11y", "aria"accessibility-tester
"UI", "component", "layout", "design system"design-reviewer
"docs", "research", "ecosystem", "reference", "educational"fact-checker
"Codex", "cross-tool", "sync.sh"codex-specialist

Keywords are case-insensitive substring matches against the scope body.

Override Rules

  • overrides.include appends reviewers unconditionally.
  • overrides.exclude removes reviewers EXCEPT those in always. Attempting to exclude an always member is silently ignored.
  • Invalid reviewer names are rejected with an error listing valid names.

Failure Modes

  • Scope empty or unreadable: return always panel only, warn caller.
  • No file types detected: fall back to keyword matching only. If neither matches, return always panel.
  • Caller requests cap > 5: clamp to 5. Non-negotiable ceiling.
  • Panel exceeds 5 members: warn caller — likely a sign the change is too broad.
  • Reviewer unavailable at dispatch time: caller skips that reviewer and notes the gap.

Orchestrator Authority

The panel recommends; the orchestrator (the agent dispatching the panel) decides. The gate and cap above are inputs to that decision, not overrides of it.

MAY:

  • Descope a P1/P2 finding if addressing it balloons scope past a single concern — file a follow-up issue.
  • Split into phased PRs when panel findings grow scope past a reasonable single landing. Core ships first; hardening and docs follow. Pre-dispatch: before handing off to an implementer, check the plan's scope — if Files-to-Modify > 5 OR total planned test count > 8, split into sequential phases upfront. The reactive trigger above fires after panel feedback; this fires before implementation starts, preventing single-agent context overflow (e.g., PR #241: 3 new scripts + aggregator changes + ADR + 11 tests → 78 tool uses → overflow).
  • Push back on false positives with explicit rationale. If the same finding recurs across reviewers or rounds, examine why — either the reviewers are right, or there's a structural reason the code looks like the pattern they're flagging. When pushing back, name the finding (reviewer + severity + quoted text), give the rationale, and cite evidence (code paths, existing patterns, prior ADRs).
  • Accept with documented deviation — address some P1s, defer others with justification in the plan's Risks section.

MUST NOT:

  • Silently drop P0 findings. P0 must be addressed, escalated, or the plan rejected.
  • Override security-auditor findings without escalating to a human.

Escalate to human when:

  • A P0 is disputed and the rationale for pushback isn't clear.
  • Multiple reviewers converge on a concern the orchestrator disagrees with.
  • A security finding's mitigation trade-off affects the trust model.

Example pushback:

Security-auditor P1: "Include severity inside HMAC payload." Orchestrator: Pushing back. Severity is computed by a separate classifier (classify-findings.sh), not emitted by the CLI wrapper, so it's not available at sign-time. Binding it into HMAC would require restructuring the entire review pipeline. Alternative: include tier in fingerprint — this closes the cross-tier collision vector without HMAC restructure. Will address P0-2 with tier-in-fingerprint; defer severity-in-HMAC as a separate ADR if needed.

Output Format

PANEL: technical-editor, code-reviewer, security-auditor
GATE: P2
CAP: 3
ALWAYS: technical-editor
NOTE: codex-specialist included — scope touches sync.sh

One NOTE line per non-obvious selection decision. Callers surface these in review summaries.

平台分布

Codex

33.41%
按下载量换算466

Claude

30.48%
按下载量换算425

Cursor

19.3%
按下载量换算269

Gemini CLI

9.18%
按下载量换算128

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills