Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

compound-eng-simplifying-code(复合工程简化代码)

compound-eng-simplifying-code 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 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。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT-0,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 13,174。

总安装 9,621周安装 393GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 3,113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-0
版本
3.0.5

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:compound-eng-simplifying-code(复合工程简化代码)
来源仓库:https://github.com/iliaal/compound-eng-simplifying-code
安装命令:
openclaw skills install compound-eng-simplifying-code
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 compound-eng-simplifying-code

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。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 在不改变行为前提下简化、清理与重构代码。适用于 OpenClaw 中被要求删除死代码、整理 AI 溢出内容或优化可读性时使用。支持移除冗余逻辑、统一命名规范与提取公共函数。安装需确认项目版本控制系统权限,建议在 feature 分支先行验证变更。

涉及核心业务逻辑时应保留完整测试覆盖,防止简化引入隐性 bug。

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 OpenClaw;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 openclaw skills install compound-eng-simplifying-code;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

compound-eng-simplifying-code 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install compound-eng-simplifying-code。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。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。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 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。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。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。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 9,621 次,近一周安装 393 次,下载 3,113 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。

compound-eng-simplifying-code 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

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,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 OpenClaw,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
compound-eng-simplifying-code

复合工程简化代码 · 本页

9,621—需要联网MIT-0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

name
ia-simplifying-code
class
discipline
description
>-

Simplifying Code

Principles

PrincipleRule
Preserve behaviorOutput must do exactly what the input did -- no silent feature additions or removals. Specifically preserve: async/sync boundaries (do not convert sync to async or reverse), error propagation paths (do not alter strategy), logging/telemetry/guards/retries that encode operational intent, and domain-specific steps (do not collapse into generic helpers that hide intent)
Explicit over cleverPrefer explicit variables over nested expressions. Readable beats compact
Simplicity over cleanlinessPrefer straightforward code over pattern-heavy "clean" code. Three similar lines beat a premature abstraction
Surgical changesTouch only what needs simplifying. Match existing style, naming conventions, and formatting of the surrounding code
Surface assumptionsBefore changing a block, identify what imports it, what it imports, and what tests cover it. Edit dependents in the same pass

Process

  1. Read first -- understand the full file and its dependents before changing anything. Apply Chesterton's Fence: if you see code that looks unnecessary but don't understand why it's there, check git blame before removing it. First understand the reason, then decide if the reason still applies.
  2. Identify invariants -- what must stay the same? Public API, return types, side effects, error behavior
  3. Identify targets -- find the highest-impact simplification opportunities. Impact = readability and maintainability; prioritize: control flow -> naming -> duplication -> types (see Smell -> Fix table)
  4. Apply in order -- control flow → naming → duplication → data shaping → types. Structural changes first, cosmetic last
  5. Verify -- confirm no behavior change: tests pass, types check, imports resolve
  6. Pre-submit scope audit -- walk every changed line and ask "does the requested task explicitly require this line?" If no, revert it and list it as a follow-up under Residual Risks. Drive-by edits belong in a separate change, not the current patch. For the pre-edit complement on ambiguous-scope requests ("simplify my project"), see ia-verification-before-completion's Scope Confirmation gate.

Smell → Fix

SmellFix
Deep nesting (>2 levels)Guard clauses with early returns
Long function (>20 lines)Extract into named functions by responsibility
Too many parameters (>3)Group into an options/config object
Duplicated block (3+ occurrences)Extract shared function. Two copies = leave inline; wait for the third
Magic numbers/stringsNamed constants
Complex conditionalExtract to descriptively-named boolean or function
Dense transform chain (3+ chained methods)Break into named intermediates for debuggability
Dead code / unreachable branchesDelete entirely -- no commented-out code
Unnecessary else after returnRemove else, dedent

AI Slop Removal

When simplifying AI-generated code, specifically target:

  • Redundant comments that restate the code (// increment counter above counter++) -- delete them
  • Unnecessary defensive checks for conditions that cannot occur in context -- remove the guard
  • Gratuitous type casts (as any, as unknown as T) -- fix the actual type or use a proper generic
  • Over-abstraction (factory for 2 objects, wrapper around a single call, util file with 1 function) -- inline the code
  • Inconsistent style that drifts from the file's existing conventions -- match the file
  • Placeholder stubs (// ..., // rest of code, // similar to above, // continue pattern, // add more as needed) -- leave unsimplified code as-is rather than replacing it with stubs
  • Redundant error wrapping (catch(e) { throw e; }, catch(e) { throw new Error(e.message); }) that strips the original stack for no reason -- remove the try/catch entirely and let errors propagate
  • Verbose stdlib reimplementations (hand-rolled loops that replicate array_filter, Array.from, Collection::pluck(), itertools) -- replace with the stdlib/framework one-liner

Stop Conditions

Stop and ask before proceeding when:

  • Simplification requires changing a public API (function signatures, return types, exports)
  • Behavior parity cannot be verified (no tests exist and behavior is non-obvious)
  • Code is intentionally complex for domain reasons (performance-critical, protocol compliance)
  • Scope implies a redesign rather than a simplification

Constraints

  • Only simplify what was requested -- do not add features, expand scope, or introduce new dependencies
  • Leave unchanged code untouched -- do not add comments, docstrings, or type annotations to lines that were not simplified
  • Do not bundle unrelated cleanups into one patch -- each simplification should be a coherent, reviewable unit
  • Do not introduce framework-wide patterns while simplifying a small local change
  • Do not replace understandable duplication with opaque utility layers -- three similar lines are better than a premature abstraction
  • Keep comments that explain intent, invariants, or non-obvious constraints. Remove comments that restate obvious code behavior.
  • If a simplification would make the code harder to understand, skip it
  • Watch for over-simplification: inlining too aggressively removes names that gave concepts meaning; combining unrelated logic into one function hides distinct responsibilities; removing abstractions that exist for testability breaks the test suite
  • When unsure whether a block is dead code, ask instead of deleting

Verify

  • Tests pass and types check after changes
  • No behavior change (same inputs produce same outputs)
  • Scope limited to requested files -- no drive-by cleanups

Orchestrator Mode (When Chained With Other Skills)

When this skill is invoked by an orchestrator that also runs ia-code-review, ia-writing-tests, or ia-verification-before-completion on the same scope, each sub-skill re-resolving scope independently wastes tokens and risks drift. Avoid this by resolving scope exactly once and passing a canonical block to every sub-skill.

Resolved scope format — the orchestrator builds this once, before dispatching any sub-skill:

## Resolved scope
Files:
- path/to/file-a.ts
- path/to/file-b.ts

Commit range: HEAD~3..HEAD (or "uncommitted")

Intent: [one-sentence description pulled from the user request or PR description]

Constraints:
- Preserve public API
- No behavior change
- [other constraints specific to this run]

Every chained sub-skill receives this block verbatim in its prompt and uses it as the source of truth — no re-running git diff --name-only, no re-parsing the user request, no independent scope resolution. Sub-skills accept --no-verify --no-report flags when chained so verification and reporting happen once at the end of the chain, not per-skill. The last sub-skill in the chain runs verification; the orchestrator trusts that result rather than re-verifying.

This prevents two failure modes: scope drift (sub-skill A simplifies one set of files, sub-skill B reviews a different set) and double work (every sub-skill rediscovers the same facts).

Integration

  • ia-code-simplicity-reviewer agent -- analysis-only pass producing a simplification report (no code changes). Use before refactoring to identify targets.

Output

After simplifying, report:

  • Scope touched: files and functions modified
  • Key simplifications: what changed and why (one line each)
  • Verification: tests pass, types check, no behavior change
  • Residual risks: assumptions made, areas not touched that may need attention

平台分布

OpenClaw

76.95%
按下载量换算2,395

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

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。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