Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

fossil-record化石记录

Agent Skill

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。

总安装

7,962

周安装

342

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

2,791
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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

简介

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。

SKILL.md

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.

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills