Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

influence-psychology(影响心理学)

influence-psychology 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。

influence-psychology 是研究检索类 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,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 4,339。

总安装 33,264周安装 1,378GitHub Stars 779下载 11,648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:influence-psychology(影响心理学)
来源仓库:https://github.com/wondelai/skills
仓库路径:skills/influence-psychology
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/wondelai/skills --skill influence-psychology
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/wondelai/skills --skill influence-psychology

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。

influence-psychology 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。适用于心理学研究、行为分析和影响力策略制定等场景。

通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需结合原始 README 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。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/influence-psychology

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/wondelai/skills --skill influence-psychology;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

influence-psychology 怎么安装?

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

influence-psychology 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。

influence-psychology 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。

influence-psychology 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。

influence-psychology 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 33,264 次,近一周安装 1,378 次,下载 11,648 次,GitHub 779 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。

influence-psychology 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。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、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。

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
influence-psychology

影响心理学 · 本页

33,264779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

Influence Psychology Framework

Framework for applying the science of persuasion ethically and effectively. Based on six decades of research into why people say "yes" and what makes them comply with requests.

Core Principle

People don't make decisions rationally. They use mental shortcuts (heuristics) that can be triggered to influence behavior. These shortcuts evolved because they're usually reliable—but they can also be exploited.

The foundation: Understanding the psychological triggers that drive human compliance allows you to design products, messaging, and experiences that naturally align with how people actually make decisions.

Scoring

Goal: 10/10. When reviewing or creating persuasive elements (features, copy, flows, campaigns), rate them 0-10 based on adherence to the principles below. A 10/10 means ethical, effective application of influence psychology; lower scores indicate missed opportunities or ethical concerns. Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.

The Seven Principles of Influence

1. Reciprocity

Core concept: People feel obligated to give back to others who have given to them first.

Why it works: Humans are wired to avoid being indebted. The obligation to repay is so strong that it can overpower other factors like personal preference or fairness.

Key insights:

  • The gift must come first (before the request)
  • Personalization increases power
  • Unexpected gifts are more powerful than expected ones
  • Even small gifts create obligation
  • The return favor often exceeds the original gift

Product applications:

ContextReciprocity TriggerExample
Free trialsGive full access first, then ask to paySpotify Premium trial → subscription
Content marketingProvide value upfront (guides, tools)HubSpot free CRM → paid tools
Referral programsGive reward to both referrer and refereeDropbox: both get extra storage
OnboardingUnlock a premium feature temporarilyGrammarly: free tone detection trial
SaaSProvide unexpected value or supportPersonalized setup call for new users

Copy patterns:

  • "Here's a gift for you..." (before asking)
  • "We've upgraded your account..."
  • "As a thank you for signing up..."
  • "We noticed you needed help with X, so we..."

Ethical boundary: Give genuine value. Don't create artificial debts or exploit obligation.

See: references/reciprocity.md for reciprocity techniques and case studies.

2. Commitment & Consistency

Core concept: People want to be consistent with their past statements, beliefs, and actions.

Why it works: Inconsistency is psychologically uncomfortable. Once we've made a choice or taken a stand, we encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.

Key insights:

  • Small initial commitments lead to larger ones (foot-in-the-door)
  • Public commitments are stronger than private ones
  • Written commitments are stronger than verbal ones
  • Active commitments (user-generated) are stronger than passive ones
  • Self-perception: we infer our attitudes from our behavior

Product applications:

ContextCommitment TriggerExample
OnboardingStart with easy yes, build to larger asksDuolingo: "Can you commit to 5 min/day?"
Progressive profilingSmall data requests that compoundLinkedIn: add photo → headline → experience
Goal settingUser publicly states a goalStrava: "I want to run 50km this month"
Social proof generationAsk for review after positive actionAirbnb: review request after good stay
Habit formationTrack streak publiclySnapchat streaks, GitHub contributions

Copy patterns:

  • "What's your biggest challenge with X?" (commitment to a problem)
  • "How much would you like to save per month?" (numerical commitment)
  • "Would you like to join X people who've already...?"
  • "You said you wanted to achieve X. Let's start with..."

Onboarding sequence:

  1. Get micro-commitment ("What brings you here?")
  2. Small action (click, choice, input)
  3. Public or written commitment (goal, preference)
  4. Reinforce consistency ("Based on what you told us...")

Ethical boundary: Don't lock users into commitments they didn't freely make. Allow easy reversibility.

See: references/commitment-consistency.md for commitment tactics and flows.

3. Social Proof

Core concept: People determine what's correct by finding out what other people think is correct.

Why it works: When uncertain, we look to others' behavior as a guide. "If everyone's doing it, it must be right."

Key insights:

  • Most powerful when observers are uncertain
  • Similar others = stronger proof (age, location, goals)
  • Negative social proof can backfire ("9 out of 10 don't...")
  • Specific numbers > vague claims ("2,347 users" > "thousands")
  • Live activity = urgency + proof

Types of social proof:

TypeDefinitionExample
Wisdom of crowdsMany people use/buy"Join 50,000+ marketers"
Wisdom of friendsPeople you know use it"3 of your friends use Notion"
ExpertAuthorities endorse"Recommended by Y Combinator"
CelebrityFamous people use it"Used by Elon Musk"
CertificationThird-party validation"SOC 2 compliant", "App of the Year"
UserSimilar people succeeded"Startups like yours grew 10x"

Product applications:

ContextSocial Proof ImplementationExample
Landing pagesUser count, reviews, logos"Trusted by 10,000+ companies"
Signup flowLive signups, popular plans"23 people signed up in the last hour"
Feature adoptionShow usage by others"85% of teams use this feature"
UrgencyLimited availability"Only 3 spots left at this price"
ReviewsRatings, testimonials, case studiesG2 badges, video testimonials

Copy patterns:

  • "[X number] of [similar people] are already..."
  • "[Name/Company] increased [metric] by [%]"
  • "Don't take our word for it. Here's what [users] say..."
  • "Join [X] others in [cohort]"

Ethical boundary: Never fabricate social proof. Real numbers, real testimonials. Disclose when proof is curated.

See: references/social-proof.md for social proof types and implementation patterns.

4. Authority

Core concept: People follow the lead of credible, knowledgeable experts.

Why it works: Obedience to authority is deeply ingrained. Following experts is an efficient shortcut when we lack expertise ourselves.

Key insights:

  • Titles, credentials, uniforms trigger automatic compliance
  • Authority is conferred (doctors, professors) and assumed (confident tone)
  • Admitting a weakness paradoxically increases authority (trustworthiness)
  • Expertise in one domain doesn't transfer, but people assume it does
  • Even symbols of authority work (lab coats, official-looking designs)

Sources of authority:

TypeSignalExample
CredentialsDegrees, certifications"Built by Stanford PhDs"
ExperienceYears in field, track record"20 years in cybersecurity"
Social proofAwards, press, rankings"Featured in Forbes, TechCrunch"
AssociationTrusted partners, investors"Backed by Y Combinator"
ContentThought leadership, research"Based on research with 10,000 users"
TransparencyHonest about limitations"Works best for teams of 10-50"

Product applications:

ContextAuthority TriggerExample
About pageFounder credentials, team expertise"Built by ex-Google engineers"
ContentOriginal research, whitepapers"State of [Industry] 2026 Report"
Product UIProfessional design, data citationsCharts with "Source: X Study"
SupportExpert consultations, certifications"Talk to a certified expert"
PartnershipsIntegration badges, security certs"SOC 2 Type II", "GDPR compliant"

Copy patterns:

  • "Trusted by [authority figure/company]"
  • "Certified by [credible third party]"
  • "Research shows that [cite source]..."
  • "Our team includes [credentials]"

Ethical use:

  • Admit weaknesses before strengths (increases trust)
  • Be transparent about what you're not good at
  • Cite real sources and data
  • Don't overstate credentials or experience

Ethical boundary: Never fake credentials or fabricate expertise. Real authority only.

See: references/authority.md for authority-building strategies.

5. Liking

Core concept: People prefer to say yes to those they like.

Why it works: We're more persuaded by people we like, trust, and feel connected to. Liking creates psychological safety and reduces resistance.

Factors that increase liking:

FactorMechanismExample
Physical attractivenessHalo effect: attractive = goodProfessional headshots, polished design
SimilarityWe like people like us"I'm a founder just like you"
ComplimentsFlattery works (even when obvious)"You have great taste in tools"
CooperationWorking toward shared goals"Let's build this together"
FamiliarityRepeated exposure increases likingConsistent brand, retargeting
AssociationLinked to positive thingsProduct placement with aspirational lifestyles

Product applications:

ContextLiking TriggerExample
Brand voiceFriendly, conversational, human toneMailchimp's playful copy
Team pagesShow real people, personalityPersonal bios, hobbies, photos
OnboardingPersonalized welcome, friendly UI"Hey [Name], welcome!"
SupportWarm, empathetic responses"I totally understand that frustration..."
CommunityFacilitate connections among similar usersUser groups, Slack communities

Copy patterns:

  • "We're [similar trait] just like you"
  • "Great choice! You clearly value [shared value]"
  • "We built this because we were frustrated with..."
  • Use casual, warm language ("Hey", "Awesome!", "We got you")

Ethical boundary: Be genuinely helpful and authentic. Don't manufacture false rapport or manipulate emotions.

See: references/liking.md for liking techniques and tone guidelines.

6. Scarcity

Core concept: People want more of what they can't have or what's running out.

Why it works: Loss aversion is stronger than gain seeking. The fear of missing out (FOMO) triggers urgency and desire.

Key insights:

  • Scarcity of time > scarcity of quantity
  • Newly scarce > always scarce (loss framing)
  • Competition increases value (if others want it, I want it)
  • Exclusive access is more valuable than open access
  • Psychological reactance: when freedom is threatened, we want it more

Types of scarcity:

TypeMechanismExample
Limited quantityFinite supply"Only 5 seats left"
Limited timeDeadline pressure"Offer ends Friday"
Exclusive accessNot everyone can have it"Invite-only beta"
UniqueOne-of-a-kind"Custom built for you"
CompetitionOthers are competing for it"12 people viewing this"

Product applications:

ContextScarcity TriggerExample
PricingLimited-time discount"Early bird pricing ends in 3 days"
FeaturesBeta access, waitlist"Join 5,000 on the waitlist"
EventsLimited seats, RSVP deadlines"Only 20 spots remaining"
InventoryStock levels"2 left in stock"
UrgencyCountdown timersReal-time countdown to deadline

Copy patterns:

  • "Limited to the first [X] customers"
  • "Offer expires [specific date]"
  • "Join the waitlist" (implies exclusivity)
  • "[X] people are viewing this right now"

Ethical boundaries:

  • Never fake scarcity. If there's no real limit, don't imply one.
  • Avoid dark patterns: Reset timers, fake countdown clocks are manipulative.
  • Allow rational decisions: Scarcity shouldn't prevent informed choice.

When scarcity is ethical:

  • Real limited inventory (truthful stock counts)
  • Genuine deadlines (actual event dates, seasonal offers)
  • Legitimate exclusivity (beta capacity limits, cohort sizes)

When scarcity is unethical:

  • Artificial scarcity (no real limit)
  • Evergreen countdown timers that reset
  • "Only 2 left!" repeated every day
  • Pressuring vulnerable users

See: references/scarcity.md for scarcity tactics and ethical implementation.

7. Unity

Core concept: People say yes to those they consider part of "us" (shared identity).

Why it works: Tribal identity is fundamental. We make sacrifices for in-group members we wouldn't make for strangers.

Unity vs. Liking:

  • Liking: "This person is like me" (similarity)
  • Unity: "This person is me" (shared identity)

Sources of unity:

TypeMechanismExample
FamilyBlood relation, chosen family"We're family"
PlaceHometown, region, nationality"Built in San Francisco, for founders"
ExperienceShared hardship or triumph"We've all struggled with bad CRMs"
ValuesDeep beliefs, mission alignment"For people who value privacy"
TribeCo-creation, movement"Join the indie maker community"

Product applications:

ContextUnity TriggerExample
Brand positioningDefine the tribe"For remote-first teams"
Messaging"We" language, shared struggle"We believe work should be flexible"
CommunityFacilitate co-creationUser-generated content, forums
OnboardingIdentity affirmation"Welcome to the [tribe name]"
Social featuresEnable unity signalsProfile badges, group membership

Copy patterns:

  • "For [identity group]" ("For designers", "For bootstrappers")
  • "Join [X] others who believe..."
  • "We're building this together"
  • "This is for us, not them"

Ethical boundary: Don't create toxic in-groups or vilify out-groups. Unity should unite, not divide maliciously.

See: references/unity.md for unity-building strategies.

Combining Principles

The most powerful persuasion uses multiple principles together.

Example: SaaS landing page

  • Authority: "Built by ex-Stripe engineers" (credentials)
  • Social proof: "Trusted by 5,000+ companies" (wisdom of crowds)
  • Liking: Friendly, warm copy and design
  • Scarcity: "Join the beta—limited spots available"
  • Reciprocity: "Start free, no credit card required"
  • Unity: "For founders who move fast"

Example: Referral program

  • Reciprocity: Give reward to both parties
  • Social proof: "X friends already joined"
  • Unity: "Invite your team"
  • Commitment: After they've had a good experience

Ethical Application Checklist

Before deploying influence tactics:

  • Is it truthful? No fake scarcity, fabricated proof, or false credentials
  • Does it help the user? Persuasion should align with user goals, not exploit them
  • Is it transparent? Are you hiding how you're influencing them?
  • Is it reversible? Can users easily undo commitments?
  • Would you use it on yourself/family? The golden rule of persuasion
  • Does it respect autonomy? Users should feel in control, not manipulated
  • Are you targeting vulnerable groups? Extra caution with children, elderly, desperate

The line between persuasion and manipulation:

  • Persuasion: Helping people see value they'd appreciate anyway
  • Manipulation: Tricking people into choices against their interests

See: references/ethics.md for comprehensive ethical boundaries.

Common Mistakes

MistakeWhy It FailsFix
Fake social proofDestroys trust when discoveredUse real data or don't use it
Overuse of scarcityBecomes noise, loses powerReserve for genuine urgency
Inconsistent authorityUndermines credibilityDon't claim expertise you lack
Forced reciprocityFeels transactional, not genuineGive without immediate ask
Generic unity"Everyone" is not a tribeDefine specific shared identity

Quick Diagnostic

Audit any persuasive element:

QuestionIf NoAction
Which principle(s) am I using?You're relying on luckExplicitly design for influence
Is this claim/tactic truthful?You're manipulatingRemove or replace with truth
Would this work on me?It probably won't work on othersRedesign with genuine value
Am I combining principles?Missing leverageLayer multiple principles
Can users easily reverse?Ethical concernAdd clear opt-outs

Reference Files

Further Reading

This skill is based on Robert Cialdini's research and books. For the complete science, research citations, and expanded case studies:

About the Author

Robert B. Cialdini, PhD is Regents' Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. His research on the psychology of influence has been published extensively and is widely cited. *Influence* has sold over 5 million copies worldwide and is considered the foundational text on persuasion science. Cialdini has consulted for Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and nonprofits on ethical influence strategies.

平台分布

Codex

36.43%
按下载量换算4,243

Claude

31.76%
按下载量换算3,699

Cursor

16.86%
按下载量换算1,964

Gemini CLI

10.09%
按下载量换算1,175

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