Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

metric-reconciliation(度量协调)

metric-reconciliation 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。

metric-reconciliation 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,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 53,815。

总安装 523周安装 22GitHub Stars 32下载 183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:metric-reconciliation(度量协调)
来源仓库:https://github.com/nimrodfisher/data-analytics-skills
仓库路径:skills/metric-reconciliation
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/nimrodfisher/data-analytics-skills --skill metric-reconciliation
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/nimrodfisher/data-analytics-skills --skill metric-reconciliation

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。

metric-reconciliation 用于比较生产数据库与分析数据之间的差异,提供详细的对账报告和根本原因分析。适用于需要监控数据一致性、识别异常差异或生成每日对账警报的场景。可自动检测细微或显著差异,并输出结构化摘要供后续调查。涉及关键业务数据时,应先验证权限与脱敏机制,避免误操作影响生产环境。

建议结合原始文档确认阈值设置与告警策略的具体实现方式。

来源仓库内路径:skills/metric-reconciliation

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/nimrodfisher/data-analytics-skills --skill met…;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

metric-reconciliation 怎么安装?

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

metric-reconciliation 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。

metric-reconciliation 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。

metric-reconciliation 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。

metric-reconciliation 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 523 次,近一周安装 22 次,下载 183 次,GitHub 32 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。

metric-reconciliation 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

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。

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。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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。

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
metric-reconciliation

度量协调 · 本页

52332需要联网未明确有提醒

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

Metric Reconciliation

Quick Start

Systematically compare metrics across different data sources, identify discrepancies, investigate root causes, and produce reconciliation reports with actionable fixes.

Context Requirements

Before reconciling metrics, I need:

  1. Data Sources: The 2+ systems/datasets to compare
  2. Metric Definitions: How each source calculates the metric
  3. Expected Variance: What difference is acceptable vs. concerning
  4. Time Period: What date range to reconcile
  5. Join Keys: How to match records across sources

Context Gathering

For Data Sources:

"I need access to the data from each source. Please provide:

Source 1 (e.g., Production Database):

  • Connection details OR CSV export OR SQL query to fetch data
  • System name: 'Postgres Production DB'
  • What metric: 'Total Revenue'

Source 2 (e.g., Analytics Warehouse):

  • Connection details OR CSV export OR SQL query to fetch data
  • System name: 'Snowflake Analytics'
  • What metric: 'Total Revenue'

Additional Sources (if comparing 3+ systems):

  • Same information for each additional source

Can you provide data exports or connection details for each source?"

For Metric Definitions:

"To understand why metrics might differ, I need:

How is the metric calculated in each source?

Example for 'Total Revenue':

  • Source 1 (Production): SUM(orders.total_amount) WHERE status = 'completed'
  • Source 2 (Analytics): SUM(daily_revenue.amount) WHERE type = 'sale'

Known calculation differences:

  • Does Source 1 include refunds? (yes/no)
  • Does Source 2 exclude certain transaction types? (which ones?)
  • Different time zones? (UTC vs EST)
  • Different granularity? (transaction-level vs daily aggregates)

Understanding these helps identify expected vs. unexpected differences."

For Expected Variance:

"What variance is acceptable before we investigate?

Common Thresholds:

  • Financial metrics (revenue, payments): <0.1% variance acceptable
  • User metrics (signups, sessions): <2% variance acceptable
  • Behavioral metrics (clicks, views): <5% variance acceptable

For your metric, what % difference would trigger investigation?

Also:

  • Are some time periods expected to differ? (recent data still syncing?)
  • Known lag between sources? (e.g., data warehouse updates daily)"

For Time Period:

"What time range should I reconcile?

Options:

  • Specific dates: '2024-12-01' to '2024-12-31'
  • Last N days: Last 7 days, last 30 days
  • Relative period: Last month, last quarter
  • All time: Full historical comparison

Note: Longer periods may take more time but show trends in variance."

For Join Keys:

"How should I match records between sources?

Common Join Strategies:

  1. Aggregate Comparison (simplest):

- Compare totals only - Example: Total revenue Source 1 vs Source 2

  1. Time-Based Comparison:

- Match by date/hour/minute - Example: Daily revenue Source 1 vs Source 2

  1. Entity-Based Comparison:

- Match by transaction ID, order ID, customer ID - Example: Order #12345 in both systems

  1. Multi-Key Comparison:

- Match by date + entity - Example: Customer X's revenue on 2024-12-15

Which approach makes sense for your use case?"

Workflow

Step 1: Load Data from Each Source

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from datetime import datetime, timedelta

# Load Source 1
if source1_type == 'database':
    source1_df = pd.read_sql(source1_query, source1_connection)
elif source1_type == 'csv':
    source1_df = pd.read_csv(source1_file)

# Load Source 2
if source2_type == 'database':
    source2_df = pd.read_sql(source2_query, source2_connection)
elif source2_type == 'csv':
    source2_df = pd.read_csv(source2_file)

print(f"📊 Data Loaded:")
print(f"  Source 1 ({source1_name}): {len(source1_df):,} records")
print(f"  Source 2 ({source2_name}): {len(source2_df):,} records")

Checkpoint: "Data loaded successfully. Record counts look reasonable?"

Step 2: Standardize Data Formats

def standardize_data(df, date_col, metric_col, source_name):
    """Standardize data format for comparison"""

    # Convert dates to datetime
    df[date_col] = pd.to_datetime(df[date_col])

    # Ensure metric is numeric
    df[metric_col] = pd.to_numeric(df[metric_col], errors='coerce')

    # Remove nulls
    original_count = len(df)
    df = df.dropna(subset=[date_col, metric_col])
    dropped = original_count - len(df)

    if dropped > 0:
        print(f"⚠️  {source_name}: Dropped {dropped} records with null date/metric")

    # Add source identifier
    df['source'] = source_name

    return df

source1_df = standardize_data(source1_df, 'date', 'revenue', 'Source1')
source2_df = standardize_data(source2_df, 'date', 'revenue', 'Source2')

Step 3: Aggregate at Comparison Level

# Aggregate by date (or whatever join key you're using)
source1_agg = source1_df.groupby('date')['revenue'].sum().reset_index()
source1_agg.columns = ['date', 'source1_revenue']

source2_agg = source2_df.groupby('date')['revenue'].sum().reset_index()
source2_agg.columns = ['date', 'source2_revenue']

print(f"\n📈 Aggregated Data:")
print(f"  Source 1: {len(source1_agg)} date periods")
print(f"  Source 2: {len(source2_agg)} date periods")

Step 4: Join and Compare

# Full outer join to catch records in one source but not the other
comparison = source1_agg.merge(source2_agg, on='date', how='outer')

# Fill NaN with 0 for missing dates
comparison['source1_revenue'] = comparison['source1_revenue'].fillna(0)
comparison['source2_revenue'] = comparison['source2_revenue'].fillna(0)

# Calculate differences
comparison['difference'] = comparison['source1_revenue'] - comparison['source2_revenue']
comparison['abs_difference'] = comparison['difference'].abs()
comparison['pct_difference'] = (
    (comparison['difference'] / comparison['source1_revenue'].replace(0, np.nan)) * 100
).fillna(0)

# Sort by date
comparison = comparison.sort_values('date')

print(f"\n🔍 Comparison Summary:")
print(f"  Total periods compared: {len(comparison)}")
print(f"  Perfect matches: {(comparison['difference'] == 0).sum()}")
print(f"  Discrepancies: {(comparison['difference'] != 0).sum()}")

Step 5: Analyze Discrepancies

def analyze_discrepancies(comparison, threshold_pct=2.0):
    """Identify and categorize discrepancies"""

    # Categorize by severity
    comparison['status'] = 'MATCH'
    comparison.loc[comparison['abs_difference'] > 0, 'status'] = 'MINOR'
    comparison.loc[comparison['pct_difference'].abs() > threshold_pct, 'status'] = 'SIGNIFICANT'

    # Statistics
    stats = {
        'total_source1': comparison['source1_revenue'].sum(),
        'total_source2': comparison['source2_revenue'].sum(),
        'total_difference': comparison['difference'].sum(),
        'total_pct_diff': (comparison['difference'].sum() /
                          comparison['source1_revenue'].sum() * 100),
        'periods_matched': (comparison['status'] == 'MATCH').sum(),
        'periods_minor': (comparison['status'] == 'MINOR').sum(),
        'periods_significant': (comparison['status'] == 'SIGNIFICANT').sum(),
        'max_abs_diff': comparison['abs_difference'].max(),
        'avg_abs_diff': comparison['abs_difference'].mean()
    }

    return stats

stats = analyze_discrepancies(comparison, threshold_pct=2.0)

print(f"\n📊 Reconciliation Statistics:")
print(f"  Source 1 Total: ${stats['total_source1']:,.2f}")
print(f"  Source 2 Total: ${stats['total_source2']:,.2f}")
print(f"  Difference: ${stats['total_difference']:,.2f} ({stats['total_pct_diff']:.2f}%)")
print(f"\n  Perfect Matches: {stats['periods_matched']}")
print(f"  Minor Variances: {stats['periods_minor']}")
print(f"  Significant Variances: {stats['periods_significant']}")

Step 6: Investigate Root Causes

# Find the worst discrepancies
worst_discrepancies = comparison.nlargest(10, 'abs_difference')

print(f"\n🔍 Top 10 Largest Discrepancies:")
for _, row in worst_discrepancies.iterrows():
    print(f"\n  Date: {row['date'].strftime('%Y-%m-%d')}")
    print(f"    Source 1: ${row['source1_revenue']:,.2f}")
    print(f"    Source 2: ${row['source2_revenue']:,.2f}")
    print(f"    Difference: ${row['difference']:,.2f} ({row['pct_difference']:.1f}%)")

# Investigate patterns
print(f"\n📈 Patterns:")

# Check if discrepancy trends over time
comparison['month'] = pd.to_datetime(comparison['date']).dt.to_period('M')
monthly_variance = comparison.groupby('month')['pct_difference'].mean()

improving = monthly_variance.iloc[-3:].mean() < monthly_variance.iloc[:3].mean()
print(f"  Variance trend: {'Improving' if improving else 'Worsening'}")

# Check for systematic bias
bias = "Source 1 consistently higher" if stats['total_difference'] > 0 else "Source 2 consistently higher"
print(f"  Systematic bias: {bias}")

# Check for specific days of week
comparison['day_of_week'] = pd.to_datetime(comparison['date']).dt.day_name()
dow_variance = comparison.groupby('day_of_week')['abs_difference'].mean()
worst_day = dow_variance.idxmax()
print(f"  Worst day of week: {worst_day}")

Step 7: Drill Down on Specific Discrepancies

def investigate_specific_date(date, source1_df, source2_df):
    """Drill into a specific date's discrepancy"""

    # Filter to that date
    s1_detail = source1_df[source1_df['date'] == date]
    s2_detail = source2_df[source2_df['date'] == date]

    print(f"\n🔬 Detailed Investigation: {date}")
    print(f"\n  Source 1:")
    print(f"    Records: {len(s1_detail)}")
    print(f"    Total: ${s1_detail['revenue'].sum():,.2f}")
    print(f"    Sample transactions:")
    print(s1_detail[['transaction_id', 'revenue', 'status']].head())

    print(f"\n  Source 2:")
    print(f"    Records: {len(s2_detail)}")
    print(f"    Total: ${s2_detail['revenue'].sum():,.2f}")
    print(f"    Sample transactions:")
    print(s2_detail[['transaction_id', 'revenue', 'status']].head())

    # Find missing transactions
    s1_ids = set(s1_detail['transaction_id'])
    s2_ids = set(s2_detail['transaction_id'])

    missing_in_s2 = s1_ids - s2_ids
    missing_in_s1 = s2_ids - s1_ids

    if missing_in_s2:
        print(f"\n  ⚠️  In Source 1 but not Source 2: {len(missing_in_s2)} transactions")
        print(f"    Total value: ${s1_detail[s1_detail['transaction_id'].isin(missing_in_s2)]['revenue'].sum():,.2f}")

    if missing_in_s1:
        print(f"\n  ⚠️  In Source 2 but not Source 1: {len(missing_in_s1)} transactions")
        print(f"    Total value: ${s2_detail[s2_detail['transaction_id'].isin(missing_in_s1)]['revenue'].sum():,.2f}")

# Investigate worst discrepancy
worst_date = worst_discrepancies.iloc[0]['date']
investigate_specific_date(worst_date, source1_df, source2_df)

Step 8: Generate Reconciliation Report

def generate_reconciliation_report(comparison, stats):
    """Create comprehensive reconciliation report"""

    report = []
    report.append("=" * 60)
    report.append("METRIC RECONCILIATION REPORT")
    report.append("=" * 60)
    report.append(f"\nGenerated: {datetime.now().strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')}")
    report.append(f"Period: {comparison['date'].min()} to {comparison['date'].max()}")
    report.append(f"\n{'Source 1':20} ${stats['total_source1']:>15,.2f}")
    report.append(f"{'Source 2':20} ${stats['total_source2']:>15,.2f}")
    report.append(f"{'-'*40}")
    report.append(f"{'Difference':20} ${stats['total_difference']:>15,.2f}")
    report.append(f"{'Variance %':20} {stats['total_pct_diff']:>14.2f}%")

    report.append(f"\n{'='*60}")
    report.append("SUMMARY")
    report.append("=" * 60)
    report.append(f"  Perfect Matches: {stats['periods_matched']}")
    report.append(f"  Minor Variances: {stats['periods_minor']}")
    report.append(f"  Significant Variances: {stats['periods_significant']}")
    report.append(f"  Average Daily Variance: ${stats['avg_abs_diff']:,.2f}")
    report.append(f"  Maximum Daily Variance: ${stats['max_abs_diff']:,.2f}")

    report.append(f"\n{'='*60}")
    report.append("TOP DISCREPANCIES")
    report.append("=" * 60)

    top_10 = comparison.nlargest(10, 'abs_difference')
    for i, row in top_10.iterrows():
        report.append(f"\n{row['date'].strftime('%Y-%m-%d')}:")
        report.append(f"  Source 1: ${row['source1_revenue']:>12,.2f}")
        report.append(f"  Source 2: ${row['source2_revenue']:>12,.2f}")
        report.append(f"  Diff: ${row['difference']:>12,.2f} ({row['pct_difference']:>6.1f}%)")

    return "\n".join(report)

report = generate_reconciliation_report(comparison, stats)
print(report)

# Save report
with open('reconciliation_report.txt', 'w') as f:
    f.write(report)

# Save detailed comparison to CSV
comparison.to_csv('detailed_comparison.csv', index=False)

Context Validation

Before proceeding, verify:

  • Have access to data from all sources being compared
  • Metric definitions are clear and documented
  • Know what variance is acceptable vs concerning
  • Time periods align between sources
  • Have unique identifiers to match records (if doing detailed reconciliation)

Output Template

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
METRIC RECONCILIATION REPORT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Metric: Total Revenue
Period: 2024-12-01 to 2024-12-31
Generated: 2025-01-11 15:30:00

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SUMMARY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Production DB        $1,234,567.89
Analytics DW         $1,229,123.45
────────────────────────────────
Difference           $    5,444.44
Variance %                  0.44%

Status: ✅ WITHIN THRESHOLD (< 2%)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
BREAKDOWN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Total Days Compared: 31
  ✅ Perfect Matches: 23 days (74%)
  ⚠️  Minor Variances: 6 days (19%)
  🔴 Significant Variances: 2 days (7%)

Average Daily Variance: $175.63
Maximum Daily Variance: $2,345.67

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
TOP 5 DISCREPANCIES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

1. 2024-12-15
   Production: $45,678.90
   Analytics:  $43,333.23
   Difference: $2,345.67 (5.1%)

2. 2024-12-22
   Production: $38,901.23
   Analytics:  $37,123.45
   Difference: $1,777.78 (4.6%)

[... continues ...]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Pattern: Source 1 consistently higher
Likely Causes:
1. Timing: Production DB updated real-time,
   Analytics DW has 2-hour delay
2. Refunds: Production includes, Analytics excludes
3. Missing Data: 15 transactions on 2024-12-15
   present in Production but not in Analytics

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RECOMMENDATIONS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

IMMEDIATE:
1. Investigate 2024-12-15 missing transactions
2. Document refund handling difference

ONGOING:
3. Set up daily reconciliation alerts
4. Standardize metric definitions across systems

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FILES GENERATED
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

✓ reconciliation_report.txt
✓ detailed_comparison.csv (daily breakdown)
✓ discrepancies_only.csv (issues for investigation)

Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: "Daily revenue doesn't match between systems"

→ Compare aggregated daily revenue → Identify which days have discrepancies → Drill into specific days to find missing/extra transactions → Document known timing differences

Scenario 2: "Migration validation - old system vs new system"

→ Compare same metric across systems for overlapping period → Match by transaction ID to find missing/changed records → Validate calculation logic produces same results → Create mapping for known differences

Scenario 3: "Financial reconciliation for month-end close"

→ Compare general ledger to data warehouse → Strict threshold (< 0.1% variance) → Investigate every discrepancy → Produce audit trail documentation

Scenario 4: "Why does dashboard show different number than report?"

→ Compare underlying queries from each → Identify filter differences, timing differences → Document which number is "correct" and why → Fix or annotate the incorrect source

Scenario 5: "Quarterly business review - validate all KPIs"

→ Reconcile multiple metrics systematically → Create reconciliation matrix (metric × source) → Flag metrics that need definition alignment → Prioritize fixes by business impact

Handling Missing Context

User says "numbers don't match" without specifics: "Let me help reconcile. I need:

  1. What's the metric? (revenue, user count, etc.)
  2. What are the two numbers you're seeing?
  3. Where is each number coming from? (system, report, dashboard)
  4. What time period?"

User doesn't know metric definitions: "No problem. I'll extract the underlying queries/data from each source and reverse-engineer how they're calculating the metric. Then we can see where they diverge."

User doesn't have direct data access: "Can you export the data to CSV from each source? Or screenshot the summary numbers? I can work with whatever you have access to."

No transaction-level data available: "We'll do aggregate comparison only. This will show the magnitude of the difference but won't pinpoint specific missing transactions."

Advanced Options

After basic reconciliation, offer:

Automated Monitoring: "Want me to create a script that runs this reconciliation daily and alerts you when variance exceeds threshold?"

Multi-Source Reconciliation: "If you have 3+ sources to compare, I can create a reconciliation matrix showing all pairwise comparisons."

Trend Analysis: "I can track reconciliation over time to show if data quality is improving or degrading."

Root Cause Classification: "I can categorize discrepancies by likely cause (timing lag, missing data, calculation difference, etc.) to prioritize fixes."

Documentation Generation: "I can create formal documentation of known differences between sources for your team's reference."

平台分布

Codex

36.14%
按下载量换算66

Claude

30.32%
按下载量换算55

Cursor

20.26%
按下载量换算37

Gemini CLI

9.5%
按下载量换算17

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

可疑

Socket

通过

Snyk

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。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