Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

fossil-record(化石记录)

fossil-record 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。

fossil-record 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 15,277。

总安装 7,962周安装 342GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 2,791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
1.0.0

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:fossil-record(化石记录)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jcools1977/fossil-record
安装命令:
openclaw skills install fossil-record
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 fossil-record

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。

通过 Git 考古分析代码变更背后的历史动因。揭示压力、失败与转变对项目演进的影响。辅助理解复杂系统演化路径与设计取舍。fossil-record 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合技术债务梳理与架构复盘场景使用。适用宿主包括 OpenClaw,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

输出需结合上下文人工解读避免断章取义。

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 fossil-record;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

fossil-record 怎么安装?

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

fossil-record 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。

fossil-record 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。

fossil-record 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。

fossil-record 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 7,962 次,近一周安装 342 次,下载 2,791 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。

fossil-record 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
fossil-record

化石记录 · 本页

7,962—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
fossil-record
version
1.0.0
description
>
author
J. DeVere Cooley
category
code-archaeology
tags
metadata
openclaw
emoji
🦴
os
["darwin", "linux", "win32"]
cost
free
requires_api
false
tags

Fossil Record

"Code tells you what a system does. History tells you what a system *survived*."

What It Does

git blame tells you WHO changed a line. git log tells you WHEN. Fossil Record tells you WHY — by analyzing patterns across the entire commit history to reconstruct the evolutionary pressures that shaped the codebase.

Every line of code is the result of a decision. Most decisions aren't documented. But they leave fossils: commit patterns, revert sequences, hotfix clusters, refactor waves, and the sediment of a hundred small choices that accumulated into the architecture you see today.

The Geological Model

Fossil Record treats your git history as a geological record, with distinct layers and eras:

Geological ConceptCode Equivalent
Sediment LayersPeriods of steady development (feature commits)
Fault LinesMajor refactors, rewrites, or architecture changes
Impact CratersIncident responses, emergency hotfixes, reverts
Fossil BedsCode that hasn't changed in a long time (stable or forgotten?)
Erosion PatternsGradual drift from original design intent
Extinction EventsDeleted modules, abandoned features, removed dependencies
Adaptive RadiationRapid diversification after a major change (new abstraction spawning many implementations)

The Eight Excavation Modes

1. Pressure Analysis

Question: What external forces shaped this code?

Analyzes commit message patterns, timing, and clustering to identify:

  • Deadline pressure: Commits accelerating toward a date, then stopping
  • Incident pressure: Hotfix → fix → fix-the-fix → revert → different-fix patterns
  • Stakeholder pressure: Feature requests appearing as interruptive commit sequences
  • Technical debt pressure: Refactors that are started, abandoned, restarted
Output: Timeline of external pressures with their impact on code quality.
Example: "Between March 3-17, commit velocity tripled and test coverage
dropped from 84% to 61%. Three hotfixes followed in the next week.
This region of code still carries the scars of that deadline."

2. Decision Reconstruction

Question: What decisions were made here, and what alternatives were considered?

Analyzes:

  • Reverted commits (something was tried and rejected)
  • Branches that were created but never merged (abandoned approaches)
  • Comments that reference alternatives ("we could have used X but...")
  • Sequential implementations of the same feature (iteration history)
Output: Decision tree showing what was tried, what stuck, and what was abandoned.
Example: "Authentication was implemented 3 times:
  v1 (session-based, commits a1b2..c3d4, reverted)
  v2 (JWT, commits e5f6..g7h8, lived 4 months)
  v3 (OAuth2, commits i9j0..k1l2, current)
  Pressure: v1→v2 driven by scaling issues. v2→v3 driven by SSO requirement."

3. Hotspot Archaeology

Question: Why is this specific area of code so volatile?

Goes beyond "this file changes often" to ask "what *kind* of changes happen here and what drives them?"

CHANGE TAXONOMY:
├── Bug Fix: Same function modified to fix different bugs (fragile design)
├── Feature Accretion: Function grows as features are bolted on (missing abstraction)
├── Config Churn: Constants/thresholds repeatedly adjusted (unclear requirements)
├── Refactor Oscillation: Code restructured back and forth (no consensus on design)
└── Dependency Turbulence: Changes driven by upstream library updates (fragile coupling)

4. Extinction Mapping

Question: What used to be here, and why did it die?

Traces deleted code through git history to reconstruct what was removed and the conditions of its removal:

  • Was it replaced? By what?
  • Was it gradually abandoned or suddenly deleted?
  • Did its removal cause any subsequent issues (fixes referencing the deleted module)?
  • Is anything still alive that was designed to work with the extinct module?
Output: Extinction timeline showing what disappeared, when, and what it left behind.
Example: "The 'recommendations' module was deleted in commit x1y2z3 (June 2024).
  3 orphaned database tables still exist.
  2 API routes still reference recommendation types in their schemas.
  1 test file still imports a mock of the recommendation engine."

5. Sediment Dating

Question: How old is this code *really*, and has it been maintained or just preserved?

For each module/file, determines:

  • Birth date: When was it first created?
  • Last meaningful change: Not just whitespace/formatting — actual behavior change
  • Maintenance frequency: Is it regularly updated or untouched?
  • Author diversity: Has only one person ever modified this? (bus factor = 1)
  • Era classification: Which architectural era does this code belong to?
Output: Age map of the codebase with era boundaries.
Example:
  src/auth/     Born: 2023-01, Last modified: 2025-11, Era: "Current" (3rd gen)
  src/utils/    Born: 2021-06, Last modified: 2022-03, Era: "Founding" (1st gen)
  src/payments/ Born: 2024-08, Last modified: 2024-08, Era: "Growth" (2nd gen)
  ⚠️ src/utils/ hasn't been meaningfully modified in 3 years. Fossil bed.

6. Fault Line Detection

Question: Where are the tectonic boundaries in this codebase?

Identifies major architectural shifts by finding:

  • Large-scale rename/move operations
  • Dependency replacements (library A → library B)
  • Directory restructuring
  • Changes to build systems, frameworks, or deployment targets
Output: Fault line map showing architectural eras and their boundaries.
Example: "3 major fault lines detected:
  1. [2022-09] Monolith → microservices split (142 files moved)
  2. [2023-06] REST → GraphQL migration (89 files modified)
  3. [2024-03] JavaScript → TypeScript conversion (204 files renamed)
  Warning: Fault line #2 is incomplete. 23 endpoints still REST."

7. Author Topology

Question: How was knowledge distributed, and where are the gaps?

Maps which developers contributed to which areas, and identifies:

  • Knowledge monopolies: Areas only one person has ever touched
  • Knowledge transfers: When a new contributor takes over an area
  • Knowledge voids: When all contributors to an area have left the project
  • Collaboration patterns: Which areas have healthy multi-author contribution
Output: Knowledge topology map with risk assessment.
Example: "src/billing/ — ALL 247 commits by developer X (last active: 2024-01).
  Developer X is no longer on the team.
  No other contributor has ever modified this module.
  Knowledge void. Recommend: dedicated onboarding session for this module."

8. Evolution Trajectory

Question: Where is this codebase *heading*?

Extrapolates from historical patterns to predict:

  • Which areas are actively evolving (increasing commit diversity and frequency)
  • Which areas are calcifying (decreasing modifications, aging contributors)
  • Which architectural patterns are expanding vs. contracting
  • What the next likely "extinction event" or "fault line" might be
Output: Trajectory forecast based on historical momentum.
Example: "The codebase is trending toward:
  ✓ Full TypeScript adoption (92% converted, ~2 months to completion)
  ✓ GraphQL as primary API layer (78% migrated)
  ⚠ Growing divergence between /api and /services naming conventions
  ⚠ Test coverage declining in modules > 2 years old (neglect pattern)"

Integration

Invoke Fossil Record when:
├── Joining a new project      → Run full geological survey
├── Before modifying old code  → Run sediment dating + decision reconstruction
├── After an incident          → Run pressure analysis on the affected area
├── During architecture review → Run fault line detection + evolution trajectory
├── When someone asks "why?"   → Run decision reconstruction on that specific area
└── Onboarding new developers  → Generate the complete evolutionary narrative

Output: The Geological Survey

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║                 FOSSIL RECORD: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY            ║
║                 Repository: acme-platform                   ║
║                 History depth: 3 years, 4,721 commits       ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║                                                              ║
║  ERAS IDENTIFIED: 3                                          ║
║  ├── Founding (2022-01 → 2022-09): Monolith, Express, JS    ║
║  ├── Growth (2022-09 → 2024-03): Microservices, REST, JS/TS ║
║  └── Current (2024-03 → now): Microservices, GraphQL, TS    ║
║                                                              ║
║  FAULT LINES: 3 major, 7 minor                              ║
║  IMPACT CRATERS: 12 incidents (3 P0, 5 P1, 4 P2)           ║
║  FOSSIL BEDS: 4 modules unchanged > 18 months               ║
║  KNOWLEDGE VOIDS: 2 modules (all authors departed)          ║
║  EXTINCTION EVENTS: 8 modules deleted, 3 left artifacts     ║
║                                                              ║
║  TRAJECTORY: Healthy evolution with 2 risk areas             ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Why It Matters

Code review looks at the present. Testing validates the expected. Fossil Record illuminates the past — because a codebase that doesn't understand its own history is condemned to repeat its own mistakes.

Zero external dependencies. Pure git analysis. No APIs, no cloud, no cost.

平台分布

OpenClaw

98.9%
按下载量换算2,760

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