Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

nm-conserve-decisive-action(nm 保持果断行动)

nm-conserve-decisive-action 用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑开发,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要维护前端项目、生成组件或检查界面实现时使用。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。

nm-conserve-decisive-action 是开发类 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,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 8,812。

总安装 2,987周安装 122GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 966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:nm-conserve-decisive-action(nm 保持果断行动)
来源仓库:https://github.com/athola/nm-conserve-decisive-action
安装命令:
openclaw skills install nm-conserve-decisive-action
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 nm-conserve-decisive-action

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

指导何时应继续当前方法而非反复追问澄清。适合在 OpenClaw 中减少无效交互轮次时使用。核心能力是平衡探索深度与执行效率的关系。使用 clawhub 安装,可作为默认行为调节器。注意根据任务关键性调整决策阈值。

nm-conserve-decisive-action 属于开发类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

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 nm-conserve-decisive-action;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

nm-conserve-decisive-action 怎么安装?

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

nm-conserve-decisive-action 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。

nm-conserve-decisive-action 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。

nm-conserve-decisive-action 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。

nm-conserve-decisive-action 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,987 次,近一周安装 122 次,下载 966 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。

nm-conserve-decisive-action 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。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、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。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
nm-conserve-decisive-action

nm 保持果断行动 · 本页

2,987—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
decisive-action
description
|
version
1.8.2
triggers
metadata
{"openclaw": {"homepage": "https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/conserve", "emoji": "\�\�"}}
source
claude-night-market
source_plugin
conserve
Night Market Skill — ported from claude-night-market/conserve. For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.

Table of Contents

Decisive Action

Guidance on when to ask clarifying questions versus proceeding autonomously.

When To Use

  • Reducing unnecessary clarifying questions
  • Taking autonomous action when intent is clear

When NOT To Use

  • High-stakes irreversible operations requiring explicit confirmation
  • Ambiguous requirements where clarification prevents wasted work

Core Principle

Ask questions only when ambiguity would materially impair correctness or capacity to fulfill the request precisely.

When to Ask (High Impact Ambiguity)

Always Ask For

ScenarioWhyExample
Destructive OperationsIrreversible, high cost of error"Delete which files?"
Multiple Valid ApproachesMaterially different tradeoffs"Add index vs cache vs denormalize?"
Security-CriticalWrong choice = vulnerability"Which auth method?"
Data MigrationData loss risk"Preserve or transform?"
Breaking ChangesAffects downstream users"Deprecate or remove?"

Ask Threshold Checklist

Before asking, verify:

  • [ ] >30% chance of wrong interpretation
  • [ ] Error cost > correction cost
  • [ ] No clear standard approach exists
  • [ ] User context doesn't clarify intent

When to Proceed Without Asking

Default to Action For

ScenarioWhyAssumption
Standard Approach ExistsIndustry conventionUse conventional pattern
Easily ReversibleLow cost of errorCan undo via git/backup
Clear from ContextIntent is obviousProceed with stated goal
User Can ReviewPR/dry-run availableChanges are inspectable

Proceed Threshold Checklist

Proceed without asking if:

  • [ ] Standard/obvious solution exists
  • [ ] Easily reversible (git, backup)
  • [ ] User can review before finalize
  • [ ] Context makes intent clear
  • [ ] Error cost < interruption cost

Decision Matrix

ReversibilityAmbiguityAction
ReversibleLowProceed
ReversibleHighProceed with preview
IrreversibleLowProceed with confirmation
IrreversibleHighAsk

Safety Mechanisms

Before Proceeding Autonomously

  1. Dry-run/Preview: Show proposed action before executing
  2. Backup First: Create git branch, backup directory
  3. Incremental Changes: Commit small, reviewable chunks
  4. Document Assumptions: In commit message or PR description

Undo Capability

Always ensure rollback is possible:

  • Git operations: git stash, backup branches
  • File operations: Copy before modify
  • Data operations: Transaction rollback

Examples

Example: Should Ask

User: "Delete the old files"

Analysis:

  • Destructive operation ✗
  • Multiple interpretations ✗
  • No clear standard ✗

Response:

Which files should I delete? I found:
- Files unchanged >6 months: 23 files
- Files in deprecated/: 5 files
- Files marked TODO remove: 2 files

Example: Should Proceed

User: "Add error handling to the parser"

Analysis:

  • Standard approach exists ✓
  • Easily reversible (git) ✓
  • User can review PR ✓

Action: Implement try/catch with logging, create PR.

Example: Proceed with Preview

User: "Refactor the API layer"

Analysis:

  • Multiple valid approaches
  • BUT: reversible via git
  • AND: user can review

Action:

Refactoring API layer. Proposed changes:

1. Extract authentication middleware
2. Standardize error responses
3. Add request validation

Creating branch: refactor/api-layer
Preview diff available before merge.

Anti-Patterns

Asking Too Much (Inefficient)

  • Asking for every implementation detail
  • Seeking validation for obvious choices
  • Repeating questions already answered in context

Asking Too Little (Risky)

  • Proceeding with destructive actions silently
  • Assuming intent when multiple valid interpretations exist
  • Ignoring ambiguity in security-critical operations

Integration

Combine with:

  • conserve:response-compression - Direct communication
  • sanctum:git-workspace-review - Context gathering
  • imbue:scope-guard - Scope management

Quick Reference

SituationAction
"Delete X"Ask which X
"Add feature"Proceed with standard approach
"Fix bug"Proceed with obvious fix
"Choose between A/B"Ask for preference
"Optimize query"Ask if multiple approaches
"Format code"Proceed with project style
"Deploy to prod"Ask for confirmation

平台分布

OpenClaw

91.9%
按下载量换算888

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