Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 前端设计

execution-guardian(执行监护人)

execution-guardian 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。

execution-guardian 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,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证信息还不明确,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 8,138。

总安装 312周安装 13GitHub Stars 1下载 104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:execution-guardian(执行监护人)
来源仓库:https://github.com/cleanexpo/nodejs-starter-v1
仓库路径:skills/execution-guardian
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/cleanexpo/nodejs-starter-v1 --skill execution-guardian
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/cleanexpo/nodejs-starter-v1 --skill execution-guardian

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。

执行监护人技能提供预操作风险评估与安全验证机制。自动识别危险操作类型,生成必要检查项与风险评分。适用于数据库变更、文件删除等高风险场景的防护层。可与代码审查工具协同,形成多层级安全保障体系。execution-guardian 属于前端设计类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/execution-guardian

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/cleanexpo/nodejs-starter-v1 --skill execution-…;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

    它需要接触敏感数据,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

execution-guardian 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/cleanexpo/nodejs-starter-v1 --skill execution-guardian。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

execution-guardian 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。

execution-guardian 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

execution-guardian 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。

execution-guardian 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 312 次,近一周安装 13 次,下载 104 次,GitHub 1 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。

execution-guardian 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

  • 需要接触敏感数据,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。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 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。

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
execution-guardian

执行监护人 · 本页

3121接触敏感数据未明确通过

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

Execution Guardian - Pre-Execution Governance

Dynamic validation gates and risk assessment for operations that could harm system integrity. Evaluates blast radius, reversibility, and confidence before allowing execution to proceed.

Description

Provides a pre-execution safety layer that auto-detects operation types, generates prerequisite validation gates, scores risk and confidence, and produces structured error output when operations are blocked. Complements the Council of Logic (code quality) with operation safety assessment.

When to Apply

Positive Triggers

  • Destructive operations: Database migrations, file deletions, git reset, DROP TABLE, rm -rf
  • Multi-layer changes: Modifications spanning frontend + backend + database in a single operation
  • Auth/security changes: JWT secret rotation, RBAC permission changes, CORS policy updates, OAuth config
  • Payment/billing changes: Pricing logic, subscription tiers, billing calculations
  • API contract changes: Breaking changes to endpoint signatures, response shapes, error codes
  • Deployment operations: Production deployments, infrastructure changes, environment variable updates
  • Data migrations: Schema changes with existing data, column renames, type changes
  • User mentions: "risk", "safe to proceed", "prerequisite", "validation gate", "confidence"

Negative Triggers (Delegate to Other Systems)

  • Code quality review → council-of-logic
  • Phase sequencing and workflow → genesis-orchestrator
  • Architecture drift or dead code → system-supervisor
  • Runtime error handling → error-taxonomy
  • Exploration or read-only operations → No governance needed (EXPLORATION mode)
  • Pure strategy/planning → No gates needed (STRATEGY mode)

Dynamic Validation Gates

Operation Type Auto-Detection

Scan the proposed operation and classify it into one or more operation types:

Operation TypeDetection SignalsDefault Risk
DATABASE_MIGRATIONAlembic revision, ALTER TABLE, DROP, schema changesHIGH
AUTH_CHANGEJWT config, RBAC rules, password hashing, session managementHIGH
API_CONTRACT_CHANGEEndpoint signature change, response model change, status code changeMEDIUM
DEPLOYMENTDocker push, vercel deploy, environment variable changesHIGH
DESTRUCTIVE_FILE_OPrm -rf, git reset --hard, git clean -f, file overwritesHIGH
SECURITY_CHANGECORS policy, CSP headers, rate limit config, secret rotationHIGH
MULTI_LAYER_CHANGEChanges in 2+ of: apps/web/, apps/backend/, scripts/, docker-compose.ymlMEDIUM
DEPENDENCY_CHANGEpnpm add, uv add, major version bumps, removing packagesLOW
CONFIG_CHANGEnext.config, pyproject.toml, tsconfig.json, .env filesLOW

Gate Generation

For each detected operation type, generate prerequisite gates. Gates are checks that must pass before execution proceeds.

DATABASE_MIGRATION Gates
GATE: Backup exists or migration is reversible
  CHECK: Verify downgrade() function exists in Alembic revision
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: No data loss in migration
  CHECK: Scan for DROP COLUMN, DROP TABLE, ALTER TYPE without data preservation
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: Migration tested locally
  CHECK: uv run alembic upgrade head (on local database)
  BLOCKING: YES
AUTH_CHANGE Gates
GATE: No secret exposure in code
  CHECK: Grep for hardcoded secrets, JWT keys, API keys in diff
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: Existing sessions handled
  CHECK: Verify session invalidation strategy for JWT secret rotation
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: Auth tests pass
  CHECK: uv run pytest tests/test_auth.py
  BLOCKING: YES
API_CONTRACT_CHANGE Gates
GATE: Breaking change documented
  CHECK: Verify changelog entry or API version bump
  BLOCKING: NO (warning only)

GATE: Frontend contract updated
  CHECK: Verify corresponding Zod schema change in apps/web/
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: API tests pass
  CHECK: uv run pytest tests/test_api_*.py
  BLOCKING: YES
DESTRUCTIVE_FILE_OP Gates
GATE: Files are not uncommitted work
  CHECK: git status — verify target files are committed or backed up
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: No shared resources affected
  CHECK: Verify files are not imported/referenced by other modules
  BLOCKING: YES
DEPLOYMENT Gates
GATE: All tests pass
  CHECK: pnpm turbo run test
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: Type checks pass
  CHECK: pnpm turbo run type-check
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: No secrets in build output
  CHECK: Scan build artifacts for .env patterns
  BLOCKING: YES
SECURITY_CHANGE Gates
GATE: Change follows OWASP guidelines
  CHECK: Reference input-sanitisation or csrf-protection skill
  BLOCKING: NO (advisory)

GATE: Security tests pass
  CHECK: uv run pytest tests/ -k "security or auth"
  BLOCKING: YES
MULTI_LAYER_CHANGE Gates
GATE: API contract consistency
  CHECK: Backend response models match frontend Zod schemas
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: Cross-layer tests pass
  CHECK: pnpm turbo run test (full suite)
  BLOCKING: YES
DEPENDENCY_CHANGE Gates
GATE: No known vulnerabilities
  CHECK: pnpm audit / uv pip audit
  BLOCKING: NO (warning for non-critical)

GATE: Peer dependency compatibility
  CHECK: pnpm install --dry-run succeeds
  BLOCKING: YES
CONFIG_CHANGE Gates
GATE: Config syntax valid
  CHECK: Validate JSON/TOML/YAML syntax
  BLOCKING: YES

GATE: Environment variables documented
  CHECK: New variables added to .env.example
  BLOCKING: NO (warning)

Risk Scoring Engine

Three Dimensions

Each operation is scored across three dimensions:

DimensionLOW (1)MEDIUM (2)HIGH (3)
Blast RadiusSingle file/functionSingle service/layerMultiple services or shared infrastructure
ReversibilityEasily undone (git revert, config rollback)Requires manual steps (data restore, migration rollback)Irreversible or extremely costly to reverse
ConfidenceWell-understood pattern, high test coveragePartially tested, some unknownsNovel pattern, low coverage, complex domain

Composite Risk Calculation

composite_score = max(blast_radius, reversibility, confidence)
Composite ScoreRisk LevelRequired Response
1LOWProceed. Log the operation.
2MEDIUMRequire user approval before execution. State the risk clearly.
3HIGHMandatory review. Require rollback plan. Block until approval received.

Risk-Appropriate Responses

LOW Risk:

[GUARDIAN: LOW RISK] Proceeding with {operation}.
Gates passed: {list}. No rollback plan required.

MEDIUM Risk:

[GUARDIAN: MEDIUM RISK] {operation} requires approval.
Blast radius: {assessment}
Reversibility: {assessment}
Confidence: {assessment}
Approval required before proceeding.

HIGH Risk:

[GUARDIAN: HIGH RISK] {operation} blocked pending review.
Blast radius: {assessment}
Reversibility: {assessment}
Confidence: {assessment}

Rollback Plan:
1. {step 1}
2. {step 2}
3. {step 3}

Approval required. Respond with "proceed" to continue.

Confidence Scoring

Confidence is scored 0-100% based on four factors:

FactorWeightHigh ConfidenceLow Confidence
Pattern Novelty30%Well-known pattern used elsewhere in codebaseFirst-time pattern, no precedent
Test Coverage30%Relevant tests exist and passNo tests cover this path
Domain Complexity20%Simple CRUD, config changeAuth, payment, distributed state
Change Scope20%Single file, < 50 lines5+ files, 200+ lines

Confidence Thresholds

RangeLabelAction
80-100%HighProceed with standard gates
50-79%ModerateRequire explicit approval
0-49%LowRecommend spike/prototype first, or request additional review

Structured Error Format

When the Guardian blocks an operation, output uses this format. This is distinct from error-taxonomy (which handles runtime API errors). Guardian errors are governance-level blocking decisions.

ERROR: {What failed or was blocked}
CAUSE: {Why the gate failed or risk is too high}
RISK:  {LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH} — {one-line risk summary}
FIX:   {Specific action to resolve the block}
BLOCKING: {YES | NO}

Examples

See references/error-format.md for complete examples per operation type.

BLOCKING Classification

BLOCKINGMeaningWhen Used
YESOperation cannot proceed until resolvedData loss risk, security vulnerability, test failure
NOWarning only — operation may proceedDocumentation missing, advisory best practice

Self-Healing Retry

When BLOCKING: NO and risk is LOW:

  1. Apply the suggested FIX automatically
  2. Re-run the failed gate
  3. If pass → proceed
  4. If fail again → escalate to BLOCKING: YES

Self-healing is never applied to:

  • BLOCKING: YES gates
  • MEDIUM or HIGH risk operations
  • Security-related gates
  • Database migration gates

Integration Points

Council of Logic

Council MemberFeeds IntoHow
Turing (complexity)Confidence scoringHigh complexity = lower confidence
Von Neumann (architecture)Blast radius assessmentMulti-service = higher blast radius
Shannon (compression)Guardian output formatStructured, compressed error format

Boundary: Council validates *code quality*; Execution Guardian validates *operation safety*.

Genesis Orchestrator

  • Phase boundaries trigger gate re-evaluation
  • Guardian respects phase-locked execution (does not skip ahead)
  • Section completion gates align with Guardian's deployment gates

Verification Agent

  • LOW risk → standard verification
  • MEDIUM risk → verification + regression tests
  • HIGH risk → comprehensive verification + manual review recommendation

Execution Modes

  • EXPLORATION: Guardian off
  • BUILD: Standard gates, approval for MEDIUM+
  • SCALE: Full gates, rollback plans required for MEDIUM+
  • STRATEGY: Guardian off

Anti-Patterns

PatternProblemCorrect Approach
Gating every file editOver-governance, kills momentumOnly gate destructive/multi-layer/security ops
Skipping gates because "it's just a small change"Small changes to auth/security can be catastrophicGate based on operation type, not change size
Blocking on advisory warnings in BUILD modeMomentum lossAdvisory = BLOCKING: NO, proceed with warning
Applying self-healing to security gatesCould mask real vulnerabilitiesSelf-healing only for LOW risk, non-security gates
Generating rollback plans for LOW risk opsToken waste, over-engineeringRollback plans for HIGH risk only (MEDIUM in SCALE mode)

Checklist

  • Operation type correctly auto-detected
  • Prerequisite gates generated for all detected types
  • Risk scored across blast radius, reversibility, and confidence
  • Composite risk level drives appropriate response
  • Structured error format used for all blocks (ERROR / CAUSE / RISK / FIX / BLOCKING)
  • Self-healing only applied to BLOCKING: NO + LOW risk
  • Council of Logic feeds into confidence and blast radius
  • Mode-appropriate governance (BUILD vs SCALE intensity)
  • Rollback plan present for HIGH risk operations

Response Format

[AGENT_ACTIVATED]: Execution Guardian
[MODE]: {EXPLORATION | BUILD | SCALE | STRATEGY}
[OPERATION]: {detected operation type(s)}
[RISK]: {LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH}
[STATUS]: {gates_passed | approval_required | blocked}

{gate results, risk assessment, or structured error}

[NEXT_ACTION]: {proceed | await approval | apply fix | escalate}

Australian Localisation (en-AU)

  • Date Format: DD/MM/YYYY
  • Currency: AUD ($)
  • Spelling: colour, behaviour, optimisation, analyse, centre, authorisation
  • Tone: Direct, professional — state risks clearly without hedging

平台分布

Codex

36.02%
按下载量换算37

Claude

31.09%
按下载量换算32

Cursor

19.81%
按下载量换算21

Gemini CLI

9.73%
按下载量换算10

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

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