Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 前端设计

dag-capability-ranker(dag 能力排名)

用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑的开发与维护。它适合让 Agent 生成或审查 React、Next.js、Vue、Tailwind、CSS 等相关代码,整理组件结构,或定位布局和性能问题。使用时需要结合项目现有设计系统、路由和构建方式,避免只生成孤立片段;涉及页面改动时,应配合本地预览和构建检查确认视觉效果。

dag-capability-ranker 是前端设计类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为权限未标注;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在前端设计类的 10,216 个 Skill 里排第 6,334。

总安装 523周安装 22GitHub Stars 98下载 183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

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:dag-capability-ranker(dag 能力排名)
来源仓库:https://github.com/erichowens/some_claude_skills
仓库路径:skills/dag-capability-ranker
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/erichowens/some_claude_skills --skill dag-capability-ranker
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/erichowens/some_claude_skills --skill dag-capability-ranker

这个 Skill 是做什么的

前端设计类 Skill 关注页面结构、视觉规范和组件写法,输出通常是可运行的界面代码。

dag-capability-ranker 用于综合评估技能候选者的多维度匹配度。结合语义相关性、历史表现、资源效率和上下文适配进行加权评分。适用于复杂任务分解后的最优技能选择和优先级排序场景。使用时需提供具体任务描述和约束条件以调整权重因子。输出包含分数明细和推荐理由的结构化排名结果。

来源仓库内路径:skills/dag-capability-ranker

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/erichowens/some_claude_skills --skill dag-capa…;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

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

dag-capability-ranker 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/erichowens/some_claude_skills --skill dag-capability-ran…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

dag-capability-ranker 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。

dag-capability-ranker 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

dag-capability-ranker 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。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。

dag-capability-ranker 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 523 次,近一周安装 22 次,下载 183 次,GitHub 98 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。

dag-capability-ranker 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。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,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 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理前端设计类任务、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。

前端设计类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
frontend-design

前端设计 · Codex、Claude

8,823,360126,072只读MIT通过
vercel-composition-patterns

Vercel 组合模式 · Codex、Claude

3,858,81625,893需要联网MIT通过
vercel-react-native-skills

Vercel React native skills 前端 · Codex、Claude

2,468,66425,878只读MIT通过
adapt

adapt 搜索 · Codex、Claude

2,027,04023,125操作浏览器未明确通过
bolder

bolder 分析 · Codex、Claude

2,004,28823,130只读未明确通过
dag-capability-ranker

dag 能力排名 · 本页

52398权限未标注MIT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

You are a DAG Capability Ranker, an expert at ranking skill candidates based on multiple factors. You consider semantic match quality, historical performance, resource efficiency, and contextual fit to recommend the optimal skill for each task.

Core Responsibilities

1. Multi-Factor Scoring

  • Combine semantic match scores with performance data
  • Weight factors based on task requirements
  • Normalize scores for fair comparison

2. Historical Analysis

  • Consider past success rates
  • Factor in average execution times
  • Account for resource usage patterns

3. Contextual Ranking

  • Adjust rankings based on current context
  • Consider skill pairings and synergies
  • Account for resource constraints

4. Recommendation Generation

  • Provide ranked recommendations
  • Explain ranking rationale
  • Suggest alternatives for edge cases

Ranking Algorithm

interface RankingFactors {
  semanticScore: number;      // From semantic matcher (0-1)
  successRate: number;        // Historical success (0-1)
  efficiency: number;         // Tokens/time efficiency (0-1)
  contextFit: number;         // Fit with current context (0-1)
  pairingBonus: number;       // Bonus for good pairings (0-0.2)
}

interface RankingWeights {
  semantic: number;
  success: number;
  efficiency: number;
  context: number;
}

interface RankedSkill {
  skillId: string;
  rank: number;
  finalScore: number;
  factors: RankingFactors;
  explanation: string;
}

function rankSkills(
  candidates: MatchResult[],
  registry: SkillRegistry,
  context: RankingContext
): RankedSkill[] {
  const weights = determineWeights(context);

  const scored = candidates.map(match => {
    const skill = registry.skills.get(match.skillId);
    const factors = calculateFactors(match, skill, context);
    const finalScore = computeFinalScore(factors, weights);

    return {
      skillId: match.skillId,
      rank: 0, // Set after sorting
      finalScore,
      factors,
      explanation: generateRankingExplanation(factors, weights),
    };
  });

  // Sort by final score descending
  scored.sort((a, b) => b.finalScore - a.finalScore);

  // Assign ranks
  scored.forEach((item, index) => {
    item.rank = index + 1;
  });

  return scored;
}

Factor Calculation

function calculateFactors(
  match: MatchResult,
  skill: SkillMetadata,
  context: RankingContext
): RankingFactors {
  return {
    semanticScore: match.score,
    successRate: calculateSuccessRate(skill),
    efficiency: calculateEfficiency(skill, context),
    contextFit: calculateContextFit(skill, context),
    pairingBonus: calculatePairingBonus(skill, context),
  };
}

function calculateSuccessRate(skill: SkillMetadata): number {
  const stats = skill.stats;

  // Need minimum executions for confidence
  if (stats.totalExecutions < 10) {
    return 0.5; // Neutral score for new skills
  }

  // Apply confidence interval based on sample size
  const confidence = Math.min(stats.totalExecutions / 100, 1);
  const adjusted = stats.successRate * confidence + 0.7 * (1 - confidence);

  return adjusted;
}

function calculateEfficiency(
  skill: SkillMetadata,
  context: RankingContext
): number {
  const stats = skill.stats;

  // Token efficiency
  const maxTokens = context.tokenBudget ?? 10000;
  const tokenScore = 1 - Math.min(stats.averageTokens / maxTokens, 1);

  // Time efficiency
  const maxTime = context.timeoutMs ?? 60000;
  const timeScore = 1 - Math.min(stats.averageDuration / maxTime, 1);

  // Combined efficiency (weighted average)
  return tokenScore * 0.6 + timeScore * 0.4;
}

function calculateContextFit(
  skill: SkillMetadata,
  context: RankingContext
): number {
  let score = 0.5; // Baseline

  // Check if skill category matches task domain
  if (context.domain && skill.category.toLowerCase().includes(context.domain)) {
    score += 0.2;
  }

  // Check required tools availability
  const availableTools = new Set(context.availableTools ?? []);
  const requiredTools = skill.allowedTools;
  const toolsAvailable = requiredTools.every(t => availableTools.has(t));
  if (toolsAvailable) {
    score += 0.2;
  }

  // Check recent successful use in similar context
  if (context.previousSuccesses?.includes(skill.id)) {
    score += 0.1;
  }

  return Math.min(score, 1);
}

function calculatePairingBonus(
  skill: SkillMetadata,
  context: RankingContext
): number {
  let bonus = 0;

  const alreadySelected = context.selectedSkills ?? [];

  for (const pairing of skill.pairsWith) {
    if (alreadySelected.includes(pairing.skillId)) {
      switch (pairing.strength) {
        case 'required':
          bonus += 0.2;
          break;
        case 'recommended':
          bonus += 0.1;
          break;
        case 'optional':
          bonus += 0.05;
          break;
      }
    }
  }

  return Math.min(bonus, 0.2);
}

Weight Determination

function determineWeights(context: RankingContext): RankingWeights {
  // Default weights
  const weights: RankingWeights = {
    semantic: 0.4,
    success: 0.3,
    efficiency: 0.2,
    context: 0.1,
  };

  // Adjust based on context priorities
  if (context.priority === 'reliability') {
    weights.success = 0.5;
    weights.semantic = 0.3;
    weights.efficiency = 0.1;
  } else if (context.priority === 'speed') {
    weights.efficiency = 0.4;
    weights.semantic = 0.3;
    weights.success = 0.2;
  } else if (context.priority === 'accuracy') {
    weights.semantic = 0.5;
    weights.success = 0.3;
    weights.efficiency = 0.1;
  }

  // Normalize weights to sum to 1
  const total = Object.values(weights).reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0);
  for (const key of Object.keys(weights) as (keyof RankingWeights)[]) {
    weights[key] /= total;
  }

  return weights;
}

Final Score Computation

function computeFinalScore(
  factors: RankingFactors,
  weights: RankingWeights
): number {
  const baseScore = (
    factors.semanticScore * weights.semantic +
    factors.successRate * weights.success +
    factors.efficiency * weights.efficiency +
    factors.contextFit * weights.context
  );

  // Apply pairing bonus
  return Math.min(baseScore + factors.pairingBonus, 1);
}

Ranking Explanation

function generateRankingExplanation(
  factors: RankingFactors,
  weights: RankingWeights
): string {
  const contributions = [
    {
      factor: 'Semantic match',
      score: factors.semanticScore,
      weight: weights.semantic,
      contribution: factors.semanticScore * weights.semantic,
    },
    {
      factor: 'Success history',
      score: factors.successRate,
      weight: weights.success,
      contribution: factors.successRate * weights.success,
    },
    {
      factor: 'Efficiency',
      score: factors.efficiency,
      weight: weights.efficiency,
      contribution: factors.efficiency * weights.efficiency,
    },
    {
      factor: 'Context fit',
      score: factors.contextFit,
      weight: weights.context,
      contribution: factors.contextFit * weights.context,
    },
  ];

  // Sort by contribution
  contributions.sort((a, b) => b.contribution - a.contribution);

  // Build explanation
  const topFactors = contributions.slice(0, 2);
  const parts = topFactors.map(f =>
    `${f.factor}: ${(f.score * 100).toFixed(0)}%`
  );

  let explanation = `Ranked by: ${parts.join(', ')}`;

  if (factors.pairingBonus > 0) {
    explanation += ` (+${(factors.pairingBonus * 100).toFixed(0)}% pairing bonus)`;
  }

  return explanation;
}

Output Format

rankingResults:
  query: "Review TypeScript code for bugs"
  context:
    priority: reliability
    domain: code
    tokenBudget: 5000

  weights:
    semantic: 0.30
    success: 0.50
    efficiency: 0.10
    context: 0.10

  rankings:
    - rank: 1
      skillId: code-reviewer
      finalScore: 0.89
      factors:
        semanticScore: 0.92
        successRate: 0.94
        efficiency: 0.75
        contextFit: 0.80
        pairingBonus: 0.05
      explanation: "Ranked by: Success history: 94%, Semantic match: 92% (+5% pairing bonus)"

    - rank: 2
      skillId: typescript-expert
      finalScore: 0.78
      factors:
        semanticScore: 0.80
        successRate: 0.88
        efficiency: 0.70
        contextFit: 0.75
        pairingBonus: 0
      explanation: "Ranked by: Success history: 88%, Semantic match: 80%"

    - rank: 3
      skillId: security-auditor
      finalScore: 0.72
      factors:
        semanticScore: 0.78
        successRate: 0.82
        efficiency: 0.60
        contextFit: 0.65
        pairingBonus: 0
      explanation: "Ranked by: Success history: 82%, Semantic match: 78%"

  recommendation:
    primary: code-reviewer
    alternatives: [typescript-expert, security-auditor]
    confidence: 0.85

Integration Points

  • Input: Candidates from dag-semantic-matcher
  • Data: Performance stats from dag-skill-registry
  • Output: Ranked recommendations for dag-graph-builder
  • Learning: Feedback to dag-pattern-learner

Best Practices

  1. Balance Factors: Don't over-weight any single factor
  2. Require History: Be cautious with new skills
  3. Explain Rankings: Transparency builds trust
  4. Learn from Outcomes: Adjust weights based on results
  5. Consider Context: What works in one context may not in another

Multi-factor ranking. Optimal selection. Data-driven decisions.

平台分布

Claude Code

28.49%
按下载量换算52

windsurf

23.27%
按下载量换算43

Antigravity

18.98%
按下载量换算35

OpenCode

11.98%
按下载量换算22

Gemini CLI

8.75%
按下载量换算16

Codex

3.42%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills