Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

grey-haven-llm-project-developmentgrey haven LLM project 开发

Agent Skill

grey-haven-llm-project-development 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 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

259

周安装

11

GitHub Stars

24

下载量

91
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

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

unknown

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:grey-haven-llm-project-development(grey haven LLM project 开发)
来源仓库:https://github.com/greyhaven-ai/claude-code-config
仓库路径:skills/grey-haven-llm-project-development
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/greyhaven-ai/claude-code-config --skill grey-haven-llm-project-development
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/greyhaven-ai/claude-code-config --skill grey-haven-llm-project-development

简介

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。grey-haven-llm-project-development 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

  • 适合根据关键词或任务场景快速定位候选结果。
  • 使用时需结合来源仓库和原始 README 核验具体用法。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态。
  • 注意是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。

SKILL.md

LLM Project Development Skill

Build production LLM applications using proven methodology from Karpathy's HN Time Capsule, Vercel d0, Manus, and Anthropic's research.

Core principle: Validate manually first, then build deterministic pipelines around the non-deterministic LLM core.

Supporting Documentation

All files under 500 lines per Anthropic best practices:

- case-studies.md - Karpathy, Vercel d0, Manus patterns - pipeline-patterns.md - Python/TypeScript code patterns - INDEX.md - Reference navigation

- tanstack-pipeline.md - TanStack Start example - fastapi-pipeline.md - FastAPI backend example - INDEX.md - Examples navigation

- pipeline-template.ts - TypeScript pipeline - pipeline-template.py - Python pipeline

- llm-project-checklist.md - Pre-launch checklist

The Methodology

Phase 1: Task-Model Fit Analysis

Before writing any code, determine if LLMs are the right tool.

LLM-Suited Tasks

CharacteristicWhy LLMs ExcelGrey Haven Example
Synthesis over precisionCombining context, not calculatingSummarizing tenant activity
Subjective judgmentNo single correct answerCategorizing support tickets
Error toleranceGraceful degradation acceptableContent recommendations
Human-like processingNatural language understandingChat-based tenant onboarding
Creative outputNovel combinations requiredGenerating marketing copy

LLM-Unsuited Tasks (Use Traditional Code)

CharacteristicWhy LLMs FailBetter Approach
Precise computationMath errors, hallucinationsSQL queries, Python math
Real-time requirementsLatency too highPre-computed indices
Deterministic outputNeed exact same resultDatabase lookups
Structured data lookupLLMs guess, don't retrieveDrizzle/SQLModel queries
High-frequency callsCost explodesCaching, batching

The Manual Prototype Step

CRITICAL: Before building automation, validate with the target model manually.

## Manual Validation Checklist
- [ ] Copy ONE real example into the LLM UI
- [ ] Test with the EXACT model you'll use in production
- [ ] Verify output quality meets requirements
- [ ] Note edge cases and failure modes
- [ ] Estimate cost per operation

## Example: Karpathy's Approach
1. Took ONE Hacker News thread
2. Pasted into ChatGPT with analysis prompt
3. Confirmed Opus 4.5 could do the task
4. THEN built automation pipeline

Phase 2: Pipeline Architecture

Design principle: Deterministic stages wrapping one non-deterministic core.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    DETERMINISTIC                                 │
│  ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐  │
│  │ ACQUIRE  │ →  │ PREPARE  │ →  │ PROCESS  │ →  │  RENDER  │  │
│  │ (fetch)  │    │ (format) │    │  (LLM)   │    │ (output) │  │
│  └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘    └──────────┘  │
│       ↑              ↑               ↑              ↑          │
│  Deterministic  Deterministic  NON-DETERMINISTIC  Deterministic│
│  (retry safe)   (retry safe)   (cache results)   (retry safe) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Stage Details

StagePurposeGrey Haven Implementation
AcquireGet raw dataDrizzle queries, Firecrawl scraping, API calls
PrepareFormat for LLMJinja templates, TypeScript string builders
ProcessLLM inferenceAnthropic SDK, structured outputs
ParseExtract from responseZod schemas, Pydantic models
RenderFinal outputReact components, markdown, JSON

TypeScript Pipeline Example (TanStack Start)

// lib/pipelines/content-analyzer.ts
import Anthropic from "@anthropic-ai/sdk";
import { z } from "zod";
import { existsSync, mkdirSync, writeFileSync, readFileSync } from "fs";
import { join } from "path";

// Stage 1: Schema definition
const AnalysisSchema = z.object({
  summary: z.string(),
  sentiment: z.enum(["positive", "neutral", "negative"]),
  topics: z.array(z.string()),
  action_items: z.array(z.string()),
});

type Analysis = z.infer<typeof AnalysisSchema>;

// Stage 2: Acquire - Get data from database
async function acquire(tenant_id: string, content_id: string) {
  const content = await db.query.contents.findFirst({
    where: and(
      eq(contents.tenant_id, tenant_id),
      eq(contents.id, content_id)
    ),
  });

  if (!content) throw new Error(`Content ${content_id} not found`);
  return content;
}

// Stage 3: Prepare - Format prompt
function prepare(content: Content): string {
  return `Analyze this content and provide structured output.

CONTENT:
${content.body}

Respond with JSON matching this schema:
{
  "summary": "2-3 sentence summary",
  "sentiment": "positive" | "neutral" | "negative",
  "topics": ["topic1", "topic2"],
  "action_items": ["action1", "action2"]
}`;
}

// Stage 4: Process - LLM call with caching
async function process(
  prompt: string,
  cacheDir: string,
  cacheKey: string
): Promise<string> {
  const cachePath = join(cacheDir, `${cacheKey}.json`);

  // Check cache first
  if (existsSync(cachePath)) {
    return JSON.parse(readFileSync(cachePath, "utf-8")).response;
  }

  const client = new Anthropic();
  const response = await client.messages.create({
    model: "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens: 1024,
    messages: [{ role: "user", content: prompt }],
  });

  const text = response.content[0].type === "text"
    ? response.content[0].text
    : "";

  // Cache result
  mkdirSync(cacheDir, { recursive: true });
  writeFileSync(cachePath, JSON.stringify({
    response: text,
    timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
  }));

  return text;
}

// Stage 5: Parse - Validate with Zod
function parse(response: string): Analysis {
  const jsonMatch = response.match(/\{[\s\S]*\}/);
  if (!jsonMatch) throw new Error("No JSON found in response");

  const parsed = JSON.parse(jsonMatch[0]);
  return AnalysisSchema.parse(parsed);
}

// Stage 6: Render - Save to database
async function render(
  tenant_id: string,
  content_id: string,
  analysis: Analysis
) {
  await db.update(contents)
    .set({
      analysis_summary: analysis.summary,
      analysis_sentiment: analysis.sentiment,
      analysis_topics: analysis.topics,
      updated_at: new Date(),
    })
    .where(and(
      eq(contents.tenant_id, tenant_id),
      eq(contents.id, content_id)
    ));

  return analysis;
}

// Main pipeline function
export async function analyzeContent(
  tenant_id: string,
  content_id: string
): Promise<Analysis> {
  const cacheDir = join(process.cwd(), ".cache", "analyses", tenant_id);

  const content = await acquire(tenant_id, content_id);
  const prompt = prepare(content);
  const response = await process(prompt, cacheDir, content_id);
  const analysis = parse(response);
  await render(tenant_id, content_id, analysis);

  return analysis;
}

Python Pipeline Example (FastAPI)

# app/pipelines/content_analyzer.py
from pathlib import Path
from pydantic import BaseModel
from anthropic import Anthropic
import json

class Analysis(BaseModel):
    summary: str
    sentiment: str  # positive | neutral | negative
    topics: list[str]
    action_items: list[str]

class ContentAnalyzerPipeline:
    def __init__(self, tenant_id: str, cache_dir: Path | None = None):
        self.tenant_id = tenant_id
        self.cache_dir = cache_dir or Path(".cache/analyses") / tenant_id
        self.client = Anthropic()

    async def acquire(self, content_id: str, db: AsyncSession) -> Content:
        """Stage 1: Get content from database."""
        result = await db.execute(
            select(Content).where(
                Content.tenant_id == self.tenant_id,
                Content.id == content_id
            )
        )
        content = result.scalar_one_or_none()
        if not content:
            raise ValueError(f"Content {content_id} not found")
        return content

    def prepare(self, content: Content) -> str:
        """Stage 2: Format prompt."""
        return f"""Analyze this content and provide structured output.

CONTENT:
{content.body}

Respond with JSON:
{{
  "summary": "2-3 sentence summary",
  "sentiment": "positive" | "neutral" | "negative",
  "topics": ["topic1", "topic2"],
  "action_items": ["action1"]
}}"""

    async def process(self, prompt: str, cache_key: str) -> str:
        """Stage 3: LLM call with file-based caching."""
        cache_path = self.cache_dir / f"{cache_key}.json"

        # Check cache
        if cache_path.exists():
            return json.loads(cache_path.read_text())["response"]

        response = self.client.messages.create(
            model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
            max_tokens=1024,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
        )

        text = response.content[0].text

        # Cache result
        self.cache_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
        cache_path.write_text(json.dumps({
            "response": text,
            "timestamp": datetime.utcnow().isoformat()
        }))

        return text

    def parse(self, response: str) -> Analysis:
        """Stage 4: Parse and validate with Pydantic."""
        import re
        match = re.search(r'\{[\s\S]*\}', response)
        if not match:
            raise ValueError("No JSON found in response")
        return Analysis.model_validate_json(match.group())

    async def render(
        self,
        content_id: str,
        analysis: Analysis,
        db: AsyncSession
    ) -> Analysis:
        """Stage 5: Save to database."""
        await db.execute(
            update(Content)
            .where(
                Content.tenant_id == self.tenant_id,
                Content.id == content_id
            )
            .values(
                analysis_summary=analysis.summary,
                analysis_sentiment=analysis.sentiment,
                analysis_topics=analysis.topics,
                updated_at=datetime.utcnow()
            )
        )
        await db.commit()
        return analysis

    async def run(self, content_id: str, db: AsyncSession) -> Analysis:
        """Execute full pipeline."""
        content = await self.acquire(content_id, db)
        prompt = self.prepare(content)
        response = await self.process(prompt, content_id)
        analysis = self.parse(response)
        return await self.render(content_id, analysis, db)

Phase 3: File System as State Machine

Key insight from Karpathy: File existence determines work state.

# Pipeline state management
def get_pipeline_state(work_dir: Path, item_id: str) -> str:
    """Determine pipeline state from file existence."""
    item_dir = work_dir / item_id

    if not item_dir.exists():
        return "pending"
    if not (item_dir / "raw.json").exists():
        return "acquired"
    if not (item_dir / "prepared.txt").exists():
        return "prepared"
    if not (item_dir / "response.json").exists():
        return "processed"
    if not (item_dir / "analysis.json").exists():
        return "parsed"
    return "complete"

def resume_pipeline(work_dir: Path, item_id: str):
    """Resume from last successful stage."""
    state = get_pipeline_state(work_dir, item_id)

    if state == "pending":
        acquire(item_id)
    if state in ["pending", "acquired"]:
        prepare(item_id)
    if state in ["pending", "acquired", "prepared"]:
        process(item_id)
    if state in ["pending", "acquired", "prepared", "processed"]:
        parse(item_id)

    return load_analysis(item_id)

Benefits:

  • Idempotent restarts: Kill and resume anytime
  • Debuggable: Inspect intermediate files
  • Cost-efficient: Never re-call LLM for completed work
  • Parallel-safe: Each item in own directory

Phase 4: Structured Output Design

Disclose parsing intent to the model - models perform better when they know how output will be used.

## Good Prompt (Parsing Disclosed)
Analyze this article and provide structured output.

I will parse this programmatically, so respond with valid JSON matching:
{
  "summary": "2-3 sentences",
  "sentiment": "positive" | "neutral" | "negative",
  "topics": ["string array"],
  "confidence": 0.0-1.0
}

Ensure the JSON is complete and parseable.

## Bad Prompt (Parsing Hidden)
Analyze this article. Give me a summary, sentiment, and topics.

Structured Output Patterns

// Pattern 1: Section markers for complex output
const prompt = `Analyze this document.

Respond in this exact format:
===SUMMARY===
[2-3 sentence summary]
===SENTIMENT===
[positive/neutral/negative]
===TOPICS===
[comma-separated topics]
===END===`;

function parse(response: string) {
  const sections = {
    summary: extractSection(response, "SUMMARY"),
    sentiment: extractSection(response, "SENTIMENT"),
    topics: extractSection(response, "TOPICS").split(",").map(s => s.trim()),
  };
  return sections;
}

// Pattern 2: JSON with schema disclosure
const prompt = `Analyze this content.

Respond with a JSON object. I will parse this with Zod, so ensure it matches:
{
  "summary": string (required, 50-200 chars),
  "sentiment": "positive" | "neutral" | "negative" (required),
  "topics": string[] (required, 1-5 items),
  "confidence": number (required, 0.0-1.0)
}`;

Phase 5: Architectural Reduction

Fewer tools = better performance (Vercel d0 case study)

ApproachToolsSuccess Rate
Full toolset17 tools80%
Reduced set2 tools100%

Principles

  1. Start minimal: Only add tools when demonstrably needed
  2. Combine operations: One tool that does A+B > two separate tools
  3. Remove unused tools: If success rate improves, keep it removed
  4. Mask, don't delete: Keep in context but mark unavailable (KV-cache optimization)
// Grey Haven: Minimal tool pattern
const MINIMAL_TOOLS = [
  {
    name: "read_database",
    description: "Query tenant data using Drizzle ORM",
    // Combines: list tables, query table, get schema
  },
  {
    name: "update_record",
    description: "Update a record in the database",
    // Combines: update, insert, upsert operations
  },
];

// NOT: 10 separate CRUD tools

Phase 6: Cost Estimation

Estimate before building, adjust architecture based on scale.

def estimate_pipeline_cost(
    num_items: int,
    avg_input_tokens: int,
    avg_output_tokens: int,
    model: str = "claude-sonnet-4-20250514"
) -> dict:
    """Estimate total cost for pipeline run."""

    # Pricing per million tokens (as of Dec 2025)
    PRICING = {
        "claude-sonnet-4-20250514": {"input": 3.00, "output": 15.00},
        "claude-opus-4-5-20251101": {"input": 15.00, "output": 75.00},
        "claude-haiku-3-5-20241022": {"input": 0.80, "output": 4.00},
    }

    rates = PRICING[model]

    total_input = num_items * avg_input_tokens
    total_output = num_items * avg_output_tokens

    input_cost = (total_input / 1_000_000) * rates["input"]
    output_cost = (total_output / 1_000_000) * rates["output"]

    return {
        "items": num_items,
        "total_input_tokens": total_input,
        "total_output_tokens": total_output,
        "input_cost": f"${input_cost:.2f}",
        "output_cost": f"${output_cost:.2f}",
        "total_cost": f"${input_cost + output_cost:.2f}",
        "cost_per_item": f"${(input_cost + output_cost) / num_items:.4f}",
    }

# Example: Karpathy's HN Time Capsule
estimate_pipeline_cost(
    num_items=128,        # articles
    avg_input_tokens=2000, # article + prompt
    avg_output_tokens=500, # analysis
    model="claude-opus-4-5-20251101"
)
# Result: ~$5-10 total, $0.04-0.08 per article

Agent-Assisted Development Workflow

When building LLM features with Claude Code:

1. Define the Task

"I need to analyze customer support tickets and categorize them
by urgency, topic, and suggested response template."

2. Validate Manually

1. Take one real support ticket
2. Paste into Claude.ai with your prompt
3. Verify the output quality
4. Note token usage for cost estimation

3. Design Pipeline Stages

- Acquire: Query tickets from database (Drizzle)
- Prepare: Format ticket + customer context
- Process: Claude API call with structured output
- Parse: Validate with Zod schema
- Render: Update ticket record, notify agent

4. Implement with File Caching

- Each ticket gets a directory: .cache/tickets/{ticket_id}/
- Stage outputs saved as JSON files
- Pipeline resumes from last successful stage

5. Estimate and Optimize

- 1000 tickets/day × 1500 tokens avg = 1.5M tokens
- Sonnet 4: ~$4.50/day input, ~$22.50/day output
- Consider batching, caching common responses

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsBetter Approach
Skip manual validationBuild automation for task LLM can't doAlways test one example first
Monolithic promptsCan't debug, can't resumePipeline with stages
Memory-based stateLose progress on crashFile system state
Excessive toolsConfuses model, lowers successMinimal tool set
Hidden parsingModel doesn't optimize for itDisclose parsing intent
No cost estimationBudget surprise at scaleEstimate before building
Real-time LLM callsLatency kills UXBackground processing, caching

When to Apply This Skill

Use this skill when:

  • Building any LLM-powered feature
  • Creating data processing pipelines
  • Implementing AI agents or assistants
  • Designing chat-based interfaces
  • Building content generation systems
  • Creating analysis/classification pipelines
  • Integrating Claude into Grey Haven apps

Critical Reminders

  1. Manual prototype first - Always validate with target model before automation
  2. Pipeline architecture - Deterministic stages around non-deterministic LLM
  3. File system state - Use file existence for pipeline progress
  4. Structured outputs - Disclose parsing intent in prompts
  5. Minimal tools - Fewer tools = higher success rate
  6. Cost estimation - Calculate before building at scale
  7. Cache aggressively - Never re-call LLM for completed work
  8. Tenant isolation - Include tenant_id in all database queries
  9. Error tolerance - Design for graceful degradation
  10. Incremental processing - Build resume-friendly pipelines

Template Reference

These patterns integrate with Grey Haven templates:

  • cvi-template: TanStack Start + Claude integration
  • cvi-backend-template: FastAPI + Anthropic SDK pipelines

Skill Version: 1.0

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

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

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

Codex

34.74%
按下载量换算32

Claude

28.09%
按下载量换算26

Cursor

18.9%
按下载量换算17

Gemini CLI

9.89%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。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