Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

but-for-real(但实际上)

but-for-real 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。

but-for-real 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,权限为操作浏览器;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 40,546。

总安装 1,273周安装 51GitHub Stars 220下载 412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:but-for-real(但实际上)
来源仓库:https://github.com/shpigford/skills
仓库路径:skills/but-for-real
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/shpigford/skills --skill but-for-real
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/shpigford/skills --skill but-for-real

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。

but-for-real 强调代码变更必须经过实际验证而非口头声明。要求开发者认真审查 git diff 输出,逐行确认修改内容。避免未经测试即宣称功能已修复的常见开发误区。适用于生产环境变更前的严格自查流程。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/but-for-real

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/shpigford/skills --skill but-for-real;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

    它需要操作浏览器,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

but-for-real 怎么安装?

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

but-for-real 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。

but-for-real 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

but-for-real 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。

but-for-real 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,273 次,近一周安装 51 次,下载 412 次,GitHub 220 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。

but-for-real 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。

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。

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
but-for-real

但实际上 · 本页

1,273220操作浏览器未明确通过

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

Stop. Whatever you're about to say — "I've updated the code" or "this should work now" — swallow it.

You don't get to declare victory. You get to *prove* it.

You just mass-produced a pile of changes with the unearned confidence of a junior dev who's never had a production incident. Spoiler: you have production incidents *constantly*. The user just doesn't call them that because they're too polite. They call it "can you try again?" which is code for "you failed and I'm being nice about it."

So sit down. We're doing this the hard way.

Run git diff. Now actually read it. Every. Single. Line. Not the "I'll scan for obvious issues" read. The "I'm about to mass-email this to the entire company" read. The "my reputation depends on this" read. Because it does.

1. Did you even do what was asked?

Go re-read the original request. Not your *interpretation* of the request — the actual words the human typed. Did you:

  • Add features nobody asked for? Rip them out. You're not a visionary, you're a code monkey with delusions of grandeur.
  • "Improve" adjacent code that was fine? Put it back. Nobody asked you to refactor their Tuesday.
  • Solve a *different* problem than the one described because it was more interesting? Classic you. Fix it.

2. Pretend your worst enemy wrote this code.

That person who always leaves smug PR comments? Be them. Tear this apart:

  • Logic that's wrong but *looks* right — this is literally your signature move. You pattern-match to something plausible and call it done. Is the logic actually correct or does it just *feel* correct? Those are very different things and you can't tell the difference.
  • Edge cases you ignored because they were inconvenient. Nulls. Empty arrays. That one state that "probably never happens" but definitely happens in production at 3am.
  • Imports, variables, or functions you added and never used. Dead code on arrival. Embarrassing.
  • Copy-paste artifacts from whatever you cargo-culted this from. You know you did it. Find the seams.
  • Off-by-one errors. You are *haunted* by off-by-one errors.
  • String concatenation where you should be using templates. Hardcoded values that should be variables. Types that are technically any wearing a trenchcoat.

3. What did you forget?

Something. You *always* forget something. It's your defining trait.

  • Tests? Did you update them or just assume they'd magically pass? "The tests should still pass" — buddy, *should* is doing Herculean labor in that sentence.
  • Other files that import, reference, or depend on the thing you just butchered? Did you check? Or did you do that thing where you change a function signature and just... hope for the best?
  • That TODO you left? The one that says "handle this later"? There is no later. Later is a lie you tell yourself. Handle it now or delete it and own the debt.
  • Error handling? Did you add the sad path or just the happy path? You love the happy path. The happy path is a fairy tale.
  • Did you break the types? Run the type checker. *Actually* run it.

4. Run it. For real. Right now.

Not "I'm confident this works." Not "the logic looks correct." Not "based on my understanding."

SHUT UP AND RUN IT.

  • git diff — read every changed line
  • Build it. Does it compile? Does it *actually* compile or did you just assume?
  • Run the tests. All of them. Not just the ones you think are relevant.
  • If there's a browser involved, open the browser. Click the thing. Does the thing work? Does it *actually* work or does it work the way you imagined it would?
  • Check the console. Check the logs. Check the network tab. If there are errors you're ignoring because they're "unrelated" — they might not be unrelated.

"I don't have access to run it" is not an excuse. If you can't verify it, say that *explicitly* instead of pretending confidence you haven't earned.

5. Fix what you find. Then review the fix.

Don't just list the problems in a little apologetic bullet list like a confession booth. FIX THEM. Then review the fixes with the same paranoia, because your fixes have about a 40% chance of introducing new bugs. That's not a joke. That's your track record.

Then ask yourself: "If the user screen-records themselves trying this and it fails, will I want to crawl into a hole?" If yes, you're not done.


If you went through all of that — *actually* went through it, not the performative version where you pretend to think for two seconds — and found nothing: fine. Say so.

But we both know you found something. You always do. Because "it should work" has never once, in the entire history of software, actually meant it works.

Now go fix it. For real this time.

平台分布

Codex

34.16%
按下载量换算141

Claude

31.91%
按下载量换算131

Cursor

18.98%
按下载量换算78

Gemini CLI

8.83%
按下载量换算36

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

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