Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

check-completion(检查完成情况)

check-completion 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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。

check-completion 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为执行命令;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 19,381。

总安装 275周安装 11GitHub Stars 5下载 89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:check-completion(检查完成情况)
来源仓库:https://github.com/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur
仓库路径:skills/check-completion
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill check-completion
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/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill check-completion

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

check-completion 分两阶段审核任务完成情况:先审计执行历史再 remediate 遗留项。支持 22 种状态分类,提供证据驱动的 markdown 审计报告。强制要求终端状态达成,拒绝盲目标记为已完成,提升可信度。适用于工作流闭环管理,需在关键节点主动触发以确保质量。

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/check-completion

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/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill check-…;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

    它需要执行命令,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

check-completion 怎么安装?

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

check-completion 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。

check-completion 需要什么权限?

权限级别是执行命令。安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 npx skills add https://github.com/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill check-completion 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。

check-completion 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。

check-completion 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 275 次,近一周安装 11 次,下载 89 次,GitHub 5 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。

check-completion 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

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。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要执行命令,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 不能接受 Skill 在你机器上执行命令的人。
  • 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。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
check-completion

检查完成情况 · 本页

2755执行命令未明确未通过

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

Check Completion

Two-phase skill. Phase 1 — Audit: scan the execution history, classify every task into one of 22 statuses, deliver a markdown audit table with evidence per row. Phase 2 — Remediate: execute against the audit until every in-scope task reaches a terminal status — Implemented for work finished, or one of the deliberate-stop statuses (Deferred to Human, Deprioritized, Cancelled, Out of Scope, Superseded with replacement verified, or Blocked — unresolvable with a concrete next step). No mid-task pauses. No defaulting to Implemented on faith.

Trigger boundary

Use this skill when the task is to:

  • audit what's been done vs. what was claimed done at the end of a session, a plan, or a branch of work
  • produce a status-report on a project / sprint / multi-step task, with evidence per item
  • convert a casual "are we done?" question into a rigorous completion audit
  • catch silent gaps — tasks that were started, assumed complete, deferred, or forgotten
  • recover from a crashed / interrupted / half-finished execution by enumerating what remains

Prefer another skill when:

  • verifying a single claim before making it → verification-before-completion pattern (inlined here for audit gates, but for a per-commit gate use that style directly)
  • evaluating external review feedback (not internal audit) → evaluate-code-review
  • planning upcoming work → plan-*, run-issue-tree, or the obra writing-plans pattern
  • reviewing someone else's PR → do-review

Non-negotiable rules (discipline)

  1. Two phases, not one. The audit table is produced first, as a discrete artifact. Remediation starts only after the table exists. Do not quietly fix things while auditing — that defeats the audit.
  2. Never default to Implemented. If there is any doubt, the task is not Implemented. Pick the most-pessimistic applicable status from references/status-taxonomy.md.
  3. Assumed Complete is not safe. Treat it as suspect. Every Assumed Complete row requires a follow-up verification or a status downgrade.
  4. Every non-Implemented row has a concrete action required. Vague follow-ups ("revisit later") are failures. State what to run, what to check, what to decide.
  5. Evidence before status. Each Implemented row names the specific evidence (test output, commit SHA, file state, observed behavior). No evidence → no Implemented.
  6. Remediation order is blockers → broken → missing → untested. Not the order the tasks were written.
  7. Remediation does not pause mid-task for confirmation. The only halt conditions: (a) the work is complete, (b) a blocker is genuinely unresolvable and has been documented with a concrete next step.
  8. Terminal state is total coverage. Every in-scope task ends at a terminal status per status-taxonomy.md: Implemented (work done with evidence), Deferred to Human / Deprioritized / Cancelled / Out of Scope (deliberate stop with rationale), Superseded (replacement verified Implemented), or Blocked — unresolvable (with concrete next step per blocker-handling.md). Rows left at non-terminal statuses (e.g., Partially Implemented, Stalled) are a failure of this skill.

The 22-status taxonomy

Every task gets exactly one status from this list. Full definitions + detection rules + evidence patterns are in references/status-taxonomy.md.

StatusShape
ImplementedFully complete, tested, working as intended
Partially ImplementedCore logic exists; edges / error-handling / sub-steps missing
Implemented but UntestedWritten; never validated or run
Implemented but BrokenWas working; now failing due to regression / dependency change
Implemented but OutdatedDone against old specs; superseded by a requirement change
Assumed CompleteMarked done without actual verification — treat as suspect
Incorrectly ImplementedDone but wrong, misunderstood, or misaligned with requirements
StalledStarted; hit a blocker; never resumed
Timed OutProcess abandoned or killed mid-execution
CrashedFailed with an unhandled error
SkippedBypassed intentionally without a valid reason
ForgottenIn scope; never addressed; never flagged
BlockedCannot proceed — explicit unresolved dependency
Deferred to HumanFlagged for human input; never returned to
DeprioritizedPushed back without a clear plan to return
SupersededReplaced by another task/approach — verify the replacement is actually done
CancelledExplicitly removed from scope — confirm this was intentional
AmbiguousRequirements were unclear — implementation may be wrong or missing
DuplicateSame task exists elsewhere — identify the canonical version and confirm it is complete
Planned / QueuedScheduled but never started
Not PlannedNever scoped but clearly relevant — flag for inclusion
Out of ScopeConfirmed does not belong in this execution

If tempted to invent a status: don't. Pick the closest existing one and explain the borderline in the Evidence column.

Required workflow

Phase 1 — Audit

1. Disambiguate scope

Before enumerating tasks, state clearly what "in scope" means for this audit. See references/scope-disambiguation.md.

Options:

  • Session scope — everything this conversation has been asked to do
  • Plan scope — the tasks in a specific plan file or TodoList
  • Branch scope — everything on the current git branch since it diverged
  • PR scope — the commits + TODO comments + linked issues on an open PR
  • Custom scope — an explicit list the user provided

If the user did not name a scope, pick the most comprehensive one that still produces a finite task list, and state the choice.

2. Enumerate tasks from all sources

Scan the six audit sources. See references/audit-sources.md for extraction recipes per source.

SourceWhat it reveals
Conversation messagesUser asks; agent promises; "I'll do X next" that was never done
Tool-call history (Edit/Write/Bash)What was actually modified; what was attempted and failed
TodoList stateExplicit task list with statuses the agent kept
Git log + diffCommitted work, commit boundaries, rename/delete operations
Test output / CIPass/fail per test; regressions since last known-good
Bash historyrm / mv / touch operations invisible to git until committed

Combine the extractions into a deduplicated flat list. Do not skip any source — silent sources become silent gaps.

3. Classify each task

For each task, run the Gate Function (adapted from obra/verification-before-completion):

For status = `Implemented`:
  1. IDENTIFY what evidence would prove this task is complete
  2. RUN the verification (or locate the existing evidence in this session)
  3. READ the output / diff / state
  4. VERIFY the evidence matches the task
  5. ONLY THEN assign `Implemented`

For any other status:
  - Pick the most-pessimistic applicable status
  - Cite the specific evidence that rules out `Implemented`

See references/evidence-patterns.md for what "real evidence" looks like per status class. See references/ruthless-auditing.md for the discipline of distrust.

4. Deliver the audit table

Output format:

## Audit

Scope: <which scope + source list>
Sources scanned: <6 sources with one-line summary each>

| # | Task | Status | Evidence | Blocking? | Action Required |
|---|------|--------|----------|-----------|-----------------|
| 1 | <task> | `Implemented` | <evidence citation> | No | — |
| 2 | <task> | `Implemented but Broken` | <evidence + what broke> | No | Fix <specific failure>; re-run <command> |
| 3 | <task> | `Blocked` | <what's blocking> | Yes | <concrete next step to unblock> |
| … | … | … | … | … | … |

Every non-Implemented row MUST have an Action Required. Blocking tasks (Yes in Blocking column) rise to the top of Phase 2.

See references/output-format.md for full formatting rules.

Phase 2 — Remediate

5. Execute in priority order
1. Blockers — resolve, or document why unresolvable
2. `Implemented but Broken` / `Implemented but Outdated` — fix regressions
3. `Incorrectly Implemented` — correct misunderstandings
4. `Stalled` / `Crashed` / `Timed Out` — re-spawn and complete
5. `Partially Implemented` — finish edge cases, error handling, sub-steps
6. `Forgotten` / `Not Planned` (relevant) / `Planned / Queued` — implement
7. `Implemented but Untested` / `Assumed Complete` — verify (retest, re-run, confirm)
8. `Skipped` (no valid reason) — either implement or change status to `Out of Scope` with rationale
9. `Ambiguous` — resolve the ambiguity (ask or pick with justification) then execute
10. `Duplicate` — verify the canonical version is `Implemented`; mark the duplicate as `Superseded` with the canonical reference
11. `Superseded` — verify replacement is `Implemented`; if not, recurse on the replacement
12. `Deferred to Human` / `Deprioritized` / `Cancelled` — document and leave as terminal

See references/remediation-workflow.md for the full order + one-at-a-time discipline.

6. Handle blockers surgically

A blocker that cannot be resolved does not justify halting remediation. Document it, then continue with everything else.

See references/blocker-handling.md for the blocker-documentation format and how to judge "genuinely unresolvable" vs. "I just don't want to deal with it."

7. Deliver the completion report

After remediation, produce the completion report — the audit table with every row updated to its terminal status.

## Completion Report

Started: <N tasks audited, M needing remediation>
Finished: <X now Implemented, Y unresolvable (documented), Z out of scope>

| # | Task | Started | Ended | Evidence |
|---|------|---------|-------|----------|
| 1 | <task> | `Implemented but Broken` | `Implemented` | <test output showing green> |
| 2 | <task> | `Blocked` | `Blocked — unresolvable` | <next step documented> |
| … | … | … | … | … |

Every row ends at a terminal status: Implemented, or explicit-unresolvable-with-next-step.

Output contract

Produce artifacts in this order — no batching, no skipping:

  1. Scope declaration (after Step 1)
  2. Source-scan summary (after Step 2) — one line per source with counts or "no results"
  3. Phase 1 audit table (after Step 4) — the full markdown table, delivered as a discrete artifact before any remediation begins
  4. Remediation log (during Step 5-6) — per-task "Fixed X by Y, evidence: Z" entries
  5. Blocker documentation (as they arise in Step 6)
  6. Phase 2 completion report (after Step 7) — the final table with every row at its terminal status

Phase 1 (artifact 3) and Phase 2 (artifact 6) are the two headline deliverables. Everything else is supporting.

Rationalizations to counter (RED baseline, abridged)

Agents under pressure default to Implemented. The counters:

RationalizationCounter
"Everything looks done, it's probably fine""Probably" is not a status. Run the Gate Function per task.
"The agent reported success earlier"Agent reports are not evidence. Re-verify independently.
"I wrote the code, so it's Implemented"Implemented but Untested until you ran it. Exit code 0 beats "I wrote it."
"It was Implemented last week"Implemented but Broken is a real status. Re-run now.
"I'll audit later; let me just fix the one obvious thing first"No. Audit first. Fixing while auditing defeats the audit.
"Not finding evidence means there isn't any"Not finding it means you didn't find it. Scan all 6 sources, then conclude.
"This is just a quick audit, I can skip the table"The table is the audit. No table, no audit.

Full table + pressure scenarios: references/rationalizations.md.

Do this, not that

Do thisNot that
scan all 6 audit sources before classifyingenumerate from memory and skip the source scan
produce the audit table as a discrete artifact before remediationsilently start fixing things while "auditing"
pick the most-pessimistic applicable status when in doubtdefault to Implemented and hope
cite specific evidence per rowmark Implemented with "looks good"
document blockers with a concrete next step and continuehalt remediation on the first blocker
run the task-specific Gate Function per statustreat all Implemented candidates as equivalent
finish every in-scope task or explicitly flag unresolvableleave rows in ambiguous states at end
use all 22 statuses; pick the closest if a task is borderlineinvent new statuses

Guardrails and recovery

  • Do not deliver the completion report without the audit table preceding it.
  • Do not claim Implemented without running the specific verification this message.
  • Do not default Assumed Complete rows to Implemented when retesting — pick the actual terminal state.
  • Do not leave rows at non-terminal statuses (Partially Implemented, Stalled, etc.) in the completion report.
  • Do not pause mid-Phase-2 for confirmation; resolve blockers or document and continue.

Recovery moves:

  • Source scan is taking too long — set a budget (e.g., 10 minutes per source). If a source is producing noise with no signal, document and move on.
  • Too many tasks (100+) — re-disambiguate scope; split into sub-audits if truly that many.
  • Audit revealed the scope itself was wrong — pause once, re-scope, restart Phase 1.
  • Remediation keeps surfacing new tasks — each new task gets added as a new row in the audit table with a status; then continues through remediation. Do not let scope creep silently.

Reference routing

FileRead when
references/status-taxonomy.mdClassifying a task — full definitions, detection rules, evidence patterns, borderline examples for all 22 statuses
references/audit-sources.mdPhase 1 Step 2 — extraction recipes per source (messages / tool trace / TodoList / git / tests / bash)
references/evidence-patterns.mdStep 3 classification — what "real evidence" looks like per status class; what is NOT evidence
references/ruthless-auditing.mdMid-Phase-1 — the discipline of distrust; when to downgrade vs. upgrade status; borderline cases
references/remediation-workflow.mdPhase 2 — priority order, one-at-a-time discipline, per-status remediation recipe
references/blocker-handling.mdPhase 2 encounters a blocker — "unresolvable" criteria, documentation format, when to escalate
references/output-format.mdFormatting the audit table or the completion report — column rules, evidence citation style, terminal-state requirements
references/rationalizations.mdRED baseline — excuses that bypass audit rigor; pressure scenario to confirm discipline holds
references/scope-disambiguation.mdStep 1 — picking the right scope when the user's ask is broad; session vs. plan vs. branch vs. PR
references/voice-discipline.mdWriting audit rows and remediation log entries — forbidden phrases ("probably fine", "looks good"), preferred phrasing, citation style

Final checks

Before declaring done, confirm:

  • scope declared and matches the user's ask
  • all 6 audit sources scanned (or explicitly marked unavailable)
  • audit table delivered as a discrete artifact before any remediation
  • every row has exactly one of the 22 statuses (no invented statuses, no multi-status cells)
  • every non-Implemented row has a concrete Action Required
  • every Implemented row cites specific evidence (command output, commit SHA, file state, observable behavior)
  • blockers documented with concrete next steps; remediation did not halt on first blocker
  • completion report shows every row at a terminal status
  • zero forbidden phrases in the report (grep-checked)
  • rationalizations table consulted before declaring "everything looks done"

平台分布

Codex

37.73%
按下载量换算34

Claude

27.18%
按下载量换算24

Cursor

18.35%
按下载量换算16

Gemini CLI

8.36%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 npx skills add https://github.com/yigitkonur/skills-by-yigitkonur --skill check-completion 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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。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