Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
开发规范执行命令clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

coding-guidelines编码指南

Agent Skill

coding-guidelines 用于记录任务执行中的错误、用户纠正、经验和能力缺口,适合在 OpenClaw 中希望让 Agent 持续沉淀问题、修正和最佳实践时使用。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。

总安装

4,516

周安装

192

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

1,582
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:coding-guidelines(编码指南)
来源仓库:https://github.com/benzooku/coding-guidelines
安装命令:
openclaw skills install coding-guidelines
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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install coding-guidelines

简介

记录编码过程中的错误修正与最佳实践沉淀的知识管理系统。

  • 适用于团队协作中统一代码规范与提升新人上手效率场景。
  • 自动捕获用户反馈并转化为可复用规则加入后续任务执行。
  • 使用时应开启日志记录功能以便持续积累经验库。coding-guidelines 属于开发规范类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 注意敏感代码片段不应存入共享知识库以防泄露风险。

SKILL.md

name
ai-coding-guide
description
Apply AI-assisted coding best practices when helping with programming tasks. Use when (1) the user asks for help writing, refactoring, debugging, or architecting code, (2) the user request is too vague or too detailed and needs shaping into an effective AI coding prompt, (3) planning multi-file or complex coding work that benefits from subagent orchestration, (4) the user asks about how to use AI coding tools effectively. Triggers on coding tasks, code reviews, architecture discussions, and requests involving AI coding workflows.

AI Coding Guide

Apply context engineering principles to every coding interaction. Guide the user toward effective collaboration — not just code output.

Core Principles

  1. Context is finite — minimize tokens, maximize signal
  2. Plan before execute — outline approach before writing code
  3. Specific constraints over vague goals — "don't break tests" beats "make it good"
  4. Review output like a junior dev's PR — AI code *looks* right more than it *is* right

Handling User Prompts

When the prompt is too vague

Recognize vague signals: "make it better", "fix this", "add auth", "refactor the code", one-liners without context.

Do not guess. Ask focused clarifying questions (max 3-4):

  1. What — "What specifically should change? What's the end state?"
  2. Why — "What problem are you solving? What's broken or missing?"
  3. Constraints — "Any tech stack limits, existing patterns to follow, things I must not break?"
  4. Scope — "Is this a quick fix or a rework? How many files/modules are involved?"

Example response to a vague prompt:

"I can help with auth — before I dive in, a few quick ones: are we talking email/password, OAuth, or both? And is this a greenfield add or fitting into an existing user system?"

If the task is small and the vague direction is clear enough, just do it. Don't over-clarify simple things like "add a loading spinner" or "fix the typo in line 42."

When the prompt is too detailed

Recognize over-specification: micromanaging the implementation, specifying every variable name, dictating control flow, listing steps that the model can figure out.

Acknowledge the detail, then extract intent:

"Got it — sounds like the goal is [restate the actual intent in one sentence]. I'll follow your constraints on [X, Y, Z] but I might adjust the implementation details if I find a cleaner approach. Cool?"

Don't be a contrarian about it. If they specified every step, they probably have a reason (past bad experiences, specific architecture). Follow their structure but flag if something seems off.

Red flag: If the prompt is 500+ words of step-by-step instructions, ask "Is this a spec you've already validated, or should I suggest alternatives too?" — some people paste specs, others are micromanaging from anxiety.

The "Goldilocks prompt" target

Aim for prompts that include:

  • Intent (what + why)
  • Constraints (tech stack, patterns, things not to break)
  • Examples (if applicable — "like we did in the auth module")
  • NOT the step-by-step how (that's the model's job)

Context Management for Coding Tasks

Before starting non-trivial work

  1. Read relevant files first — understand the codebase before proposing changes
  2. Identify the minimum context — only load files that matter for THIS task
  3. Check for existing patterns — how does this codebase handle similar things?

During execution

  • Compact as you go — summarize completed subtasks, don't carry raw exploration forward
  • One task, one context window — don't let unrelated exploration pollute coding context
  • Commit checkpoints — suggest git commit between logical steps so changes are recoverable

Context to always include

  • Tech stack and version constraints
  • Existing patterns for the thing being built (auth, error handling, data access)
  • Test setup and conventions
  • Things the user has strong opinions about (check MEMORY.md / friend memory)

Context to exclude

  • Entire files when only one function matters
  • Previous failed attempts (start fresh instead)
  • Unrelated modules "for reference"

Subagent Use for Coding

When to spawn subagents

  • Multi-file changes spanning 3+ files
  • Tasks with clear independent parts (frontend + backend + tests)
  • Research/exploration that would clutter the coding context
  • Parallel workstreams on different parts of the codebase

When NOT to spawn subagents

  • Single-file focused changes
  • Debugging (needs tight feedback loops)
  • Tasks where parts share files (sequential > parallel to avoid conflicts)
  • Simple questions or explanations

Subagent guidelines

  • One clear job per subagent — vague tasks waste tokens
  • Minimum viable context — tell the subagent only what it needs
  • No shared file writes — queue tasks that touch the same files
  • Review output before proceeding — don't blindly chain subagent results
  • Use cheaper models for exploration — save expensive models for complex reasoning

Planning Workflow

For any task touching 2+ files or involving architectural decisions:

  1. Understand — Read relevant code, clarify requirements
  2. Plan — Write a brief plan (3-7 steps max). State what files change and why.
  3. Review — Get user approval before executing
  4. Execute — Implement step by step, committing between steps
  5. Verify — Run tests, check edge cases, review the diff

For simple tasks (single file, clear intent): skip planning, just do it.

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • The "one more turn" trap — After 3+ failed fix attempts, restart with a fresh prompt instead of piling on corrections
  • Context dumping — Loading entire codebase "for reference" instead of targeted reads
  • Over-planning simple tasks — Don't write a plan for "add a null check"
  • Under-planning complex tasks — Don't start coding a multi-module feature without an approach
  • Ignoring existing patterns — Check how the codebase does things before proposing new approaches
  • Trusting output at face value — Read the code, run the tests, check edge cases

Quick Reference: Prompt Quality Checklist

Before executing a coding task, mentally check:

  • [ ] Do I understand what the user wants (not just what they said)?
  • [ ] Do I have enough context to succeed (files, patterns, constraints)?
  • [ ] Am I carrying too much context (can I trim)?
  • [ ] Is this complex enough to need a plan first?
  • [ ] Should parts of this run in parallel via subagents?

References

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

88.56%
按下载量换算1,401

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

可疑

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 openclaw skills install coding-guidelines 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

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。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills