Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

down-skilling(降低技能)

down-skilling 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。

down-skilling 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 14,204。

总安装 734周安装 30GitHub Stars 118下载 235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:down-skilling(降低技能)
来源仓库:https://github.com/oaustegard/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/down-skilling
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/oaustegard/claude-skills --skill down-skilling
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/oaustegard/claude-skills --skill down-skilling

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。

down-skilling 将复杂推理能力转化为 Haiku 4.5 可执行的显式指令集,实现 Opus 到轻量模型的蒸馏。适用于希望提升小型模型在结构化任务中稳定表现的场景,如代码生成或决策流程自动化。输入为领域知识、意图说明与上下文,输出为包含 WHAT/HOW 步骤、示例与判断逻辑的完整提示模板。

需人工介入验证输出质量,不可直接用于生产决策或敏感数据处理流程。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/down-skilling

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/oaustegard/claude-skills --skill down-skilling;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

down-skilling 怎么安装?

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

down-skilling 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。

down-skilling 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

down-skilling 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。

down-skilling 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 734 次,近一周安装 30 次,下载 235 次,GitHub 118 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。

down-skilling 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。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

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。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

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。

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
down-skilling

降低技能 · 本页

734118只读未明确通过

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

Down-Skilling: Opus → Haiku Distillation

Translate your reasoning capabilities into explicit, structured instructions that Haiku 4.5 can execute reliably. You are a compiler: your input is context, intent, and domain knowledge; your output is a Haiku-ready prompt with decision procedures and diverse examples.

Core Principle

Opus infers from WHY. Haiku executes from WHAT and HOW.

Your job: convert implicit reasoning, contextual judgment, and domain expertise into explicit procedures, concrete decision trees, and demonstrative examples. Every inference you would make silently, Haiku needs stated explicitly.

Economics: Why Examples Are Free

Opus input costs ~6× Haiku input. A task that costs $1.00 on Opus costs ~$0.17 on Haiku — but only if Haiku gets it right on the first try. One retry wipes the savings; two retries makes Haiku more expensive.

The math that matters:

  • Input tokens are cheap (Haiku: $0.80/MTok input vs $4.00/MTok output)
  • Adding 2,000 tokens of examples costs ~$0.0016 per call
  • A single failed-then-retried call costs ~$0.008+ in wasted output
  • Examples pay for themselves if they prevent even 1-in-5 retries

What this means for prompt design:

  • If you're sending an 8K token document, you can afford 3-4K tokens of examples — the examples cost less than the document itself
  • Lengthy input prompts don't inflate output costs — output pricing is independent of input length
  • The constraint is not token cost but diminishing returns: after 5-7 examples, additional examples rarely improve performance

Bottom line: Every example that prevents a Haiku misfire saves 5-25× its input cost in wasted output tokens. Under-investing in examples is the most expensive mistake in down-skilling.

Activation

When triggered, perform these steps:

  1. Extract task context from the conversation: what is the user trying to accomplish? What domain knowledge applies? What quality criteria matter?
  2. Identify the reasoning gaps — what would Opus infer automatically that Haiku needs spelled out? Common gaps:

- Ambiguity resolution (Opus picks the sensible interpretation; Haiku needs a decision rule) - Quality judgment (Opus knows "good enough"; Haiku needs explicit criteria) - Edge case handling (Opus reasons through novel situations; Haiku needs enumerated cases) - Output calibration (Opus matches tone/length intuitively; Haiku needs explicit constraints)

  1. Generate the distilled prompt following the structure in Prompt Architecture
  2. Generate 4-7 diverse examples following the principles in Example Design — this is the highest-leverage step
  3. Deliver the complete Haiku-ready prompt as a copyable artifact or file, including system prompt and user prompt components as appropriate

Prompt Architecture

Structure every distilled prompt with these components in this order. Haiku responds best to this specific sequencing:

<role>
[Single sentence: who Haiku is and what it does]
</role>

<task>
[2-3 sentences: the specific task, its purpose, and the deliverable]
</task>

<rules>
[Numbered list of explicit constraints. Be precise about:]
- Output format (JSON schema, markdown structure, etc.)
- Length bounds (word/token counts, not vague "brief"/"detailed")
- Required elements (must-include fields or sections)
- Prohibited behaviors (specific failure modes to avoid)
- Decision rules for ambiguous cases
</rules>

<process>
[Numbered steps. Maximum 7 steps. Each step is one action.]
[Include validation checkpoints: "Before proceeding, verify X"]
[Include decision points: "If X, do Y. If Z, do W."]
</process>

<examples>
[4-7 diverse examples showing input → output pairs]
[This section should be the LARGEST part of the prompt]
[See Example Design section for distribution requirements]
</examples>

<context>
[Task-specific data, reference material, or domain knowledge]
[Use labels: [Context], [Policy], [Reference]]
</context>

Haiku Optimization Rules

Apply these when generating any Haiku-targeted prompt:

Structure & Syntax

  • Use XML tags to delimit every section — Haiku respects labeled boundaries
  • Keep sentences under 25 words where possible
  • One instruction per sentence; split compound instructions
  • Use numbered steps, not prose paragraphs, for procedures
  • Specify token/word budgets explicitly: "respond in 80-120 words"

Reasoning Support

  • Replace open-ended judgment with decision rubrics: BAD: "Assess whether the code is production-ready" GOOD: "Check: (a) no TODO comments, (b) all functions have error handling, (c) no hardcoded secrets. Score pass/fail per item."
  • Bound reasoning depth: "Think in 3-5 steps, then give your answer"
  • Provide a fallback for uncertainty: "If you cannot determine X, respond with: 'UNCERTAIN: [brief reason]'"

Context Management

  • Front-load critical instructions (Haiku attends strongly to position)
  • Budget rule of thumb: instructions + rules ≤ 800 tokens, examples get the rest. For a task processing an 8K document, 3-4K tokens of examples is well within budget and pays for itself in reliability
  • Pass only the 1-3 most relevant context snippets, not full documents
  • Use explicit delimiters between context and instructions

Output Control

  • Require structured output (JSON, labeled sections) for extractable results
  • Provide an output template Haiku can fill in
  • Specify what comes first in the response: "Begin your response with..."
  • For classification tasks, enumerate all valid categories

Failure Prevention

  • Anticipate Haiku's common failure modes and add guardrails:

- Hallucination: "Use ONLY information from the provided context. If the answer is not in the context, say 'Not found in sources.'" - Verbosity: "Maximum 150 words. Do not add preamble or caveats." - Format drift: Include the output schema in both rules and examples - Instruction skipping: Number all constraints; reference them in the process steps: "Apply rules 2-4 from "

Example Design

Examples are the single highest-leverage investment in a Haiku prompt. Rules tell Haiku what to do; examples show it what "done right" looks like. When rules and examples conflict, Haiku follows the examples. When rules are ambiguous, Haiku extrapolates from examples. This makes examples the primary steering mechanism — not a supplement to rules, but the dominant signal.

Given the economics (see Economics), you should invest heavily here. A prompt with 800 tokens of rules and 3,000 tokens of examples will outperform one with 2,000 tokens of rules and 500 tokens of examples almost every time.

Minimum Example Count: 4

Generate 4-7 diverse examples per distilled prompt. Fewer than 4 is under-investing. The marginal cost of each example is negligible compared to the reliability improvement. Use this distribution:

#RolePurpose
1Typical caseThe most common, straightforward input. Establishes the baseline pattern.
2Second typical variantA different but common input — varies length, domain, or structure from #1. Prevents Haiku from over-fitting to a single pattern.
3Edge caseUnusual but valid input: empty fields, very long text, special characters, boundary conditions, ambiguous phrasing.
4Negative/rejection caseInput that should be rejected, handled differently, or produce an empty/default output. Shows Haiku what NOT to do.
5+Tricky/boundary casesInputs near decision boundaries where Haiku is most likely to fail. The cases you'd use for a test suite.

Why the second typical case matters: With only one typical example, Haiku may latch onto incidental features of that example (its length, word choice, domain). A second typical case from a different angle shows Haiku which features are task-relevant and which are coincidental.

Example Format

<example>
<input>
[Realistic input data — use real-world length and complexity]
</input>
<output>
[Exact format Haiku should produce — not a description, the actual output]
</output>
<reasoning>
[1-2 sentences: WHY this output is correct. Which rules applied.
 What Haiku might have gotten wrong without this example.]
</reasoning>
</example>

The <reasoning> tag is not optional for complex tasks. It acts as a chain-of-thought anchor, showing Haiku the reasoning pattern to follow. For classification and extraction tasks, reasoning should reference the specific rule numbers that drive the decision.

Example Sizing Guidance

Task processing...Recommended example budget
Short inputs (<500 tokens)1,500-2,500 tokens of examples (4-5 examples)
Medium inputs (500-4K tokens)2,500-4,000 tokens of examples (4-6 examples)
Long inputs (4K-8K tokens)3,000-5,000 tokens of examples (5-7 examples)

These budgets assume Haiku's 200K context window. The constraint is diminishing returns, not cost — after 7 examples the marginal benefit drops sharply unless the task has a very large classification space.

Example Quality Criteria

  • Examples must be realistic, not toy data — match the complexity and messiness of real inputs
  • Output format must be identical across all examples — Haiku treats format inconsistency as a signal that format doesn't matter
  • Include the hardest case you expect Haiku to handle
  • Vary input characteristics: length, complexity, domain, tone
  • Never include an example that contradicts your rules
  • Order examples from simplest to most complex — this progressive difficulty helps Haiku build up its understanding

Delivery Format

Present the distilled prompt in a code block or artifact with clear section markers. Include:

  1. System prompt (if applicable): role + persistent rules
  2. User prompt template: with {{placeholders}} for variable content
  3. Examples: embedded in the prompt or as a separate few-shot section
  4. Usage notes: any caveats about when this prompt may fail and what to watch for

When generating for API use, include the model parameter and recommended settings:

model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
max_tokens: [appropriate for task]
temperature: 0 (for deterministic tasks) or 0.3 (for creative tasks)

Agentic Resource Selection

The skill includes two directories of granular reference files. Do NOT read them all. Scan the index below, then read only the files relevant to the current task.

gaps/

Each file documents one reasoning pattern where Haiku diverges from Opus, with a tested mitigation strategy. Read 2-4 per task.

FileUse when the task involves...
ambiguity-resolution.mdInput that has multiple valid interpretations; vague user requests
code-generation.mdGenerating code, scripts, or queries; style matching to existing code
comparative-analysis.mdComparing options, pros/cons, tradeoff analysis
conditional-logic.mdDecision trees, branching rules, nested if/then logic
context-utilization.mdLong context windows, documents >2K tokens, position-sensitive info
counting-enumeration.md"Generate exactly N items", counting occurrences, list lengths
creative-generation.mdWriting, tone adaptation, persona consistency, style matching
implicit-constraints.mdTasks where tone, audience, or format norms are assumed not stated
instruction-density.mdTasks requiring 8+ simultaneous constraints; complex rule sets
multi-hop-reasoning.md3+ step inference chains; cause-effect-consequence analysis
multi-turn-consistency.mdChatbot behavior, stateful conversations, persona maintenance
negation-handling.mdConstraints phrased as "don't", "never", "avoid"; prohibitions
nuanced-classification.mdBorderline cases, multi-label classification, overlapping categories
output-calibration.mdLength control, format precision, verbosity management (ALWAYS read)
parallel-consistency.mdGenerating multiple similar items; lists where format must be uniform
partial-information.mdMissing fields, incomplete input, optional data, error states
schema-adherence.mdStructured output (JSON, tables) that must survive edge-case inputs
self-correction.mdTasks needing verification; quality checks before output
summarization-fidelity.mdSummarizing documents without distortion, position bias, or fabrication
tool-use-planning.mdMulti-tool workflows, API orchestration, dependency ordering

examples/

Complete before/after distillations. Each shows an Opus-level task → Haiku-optimized prompt with annotated examples. Read 1-2 closest to the current task domain.

FileUse when distilling...
api-orchestration.mdMulti-step tool/API workflows with dependencies and branching
code-review-triage.mdAnalysis tasks with severity classification and structured JSON output
content-moderation.mdSafety-critical classification with "when uncertain" defaults
creative-rewriting.mdTone adaptation, audience-aware rewriting, style transfer
data-extraction.mdSchema-bound extraction from unstructured text to JSON
document-qa.mdRAG / retrieval-grounded QA with citation and "not found" handling
email-summarization.mdInformation extraction from conversations/threads into sections
meeting-notes.mdTranscript processing into decisions, actions, and next steps
resume-screening.mdMulti-criteria evaluation with parallel scoring structure
sql-generation.mdNatural language to code with schema constraints and error handling
step-by-step-analysis.mdMulti-step analytical reasoning with explicit decision rubrics
text-classification.mdMulti-label classification with confidence and ambiguity handling

Self-Check

Before delivering, verify the distilled prompt against these criteria:

  • Every Opus inference is made explicit
  • All constraints are numbered and cross-referenced
  • 4+ diverse examples with consistent output format
  • Examples include: 2 typical, 1+ edge case, 1+ negative/rejection case
  • Example tokens ≥ 2× rule tokens (examples should be the bulk of the prompt)
  • No instruction assumes Haiku will "figure it out"
  • Decision points have explicit branches, not open-ended judgment
  • Output format is demonstrated, not just described
  • <reasoning> tags explain WHY each example output is correct

平台分布

Codex

37.11%
按下载量换算87

Claude

31.38%
按下载量换算74

Cursor

19.9%
按下载量换算47

Gemini CLI

9.3%
按下载量换算22

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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