Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 前端设计

open-closed-principle(开闭原则)

用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑的开发与维护。它适合让 Agent 生成或审查 React、Next.js、Vue、Tailwind、CSS 等相关代码,整理组件结构,或定位布局和性能问题。使用时需要结合项目现有设计系统、路由和构建方式,避免只生成孤立片段;涉及页面改动时,应配合本地预览和构建检查确认视觉效果。

open-closed-principle 是前端设计类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在前端设计类的 10,216 个 Skill 里排第 5,673。

总安装 624周安装 25GitHub Stars 10下载 202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

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:open-closed-principle(开闭原则)
来源仓库:https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft
仓库路径:skills/open-closed-principle
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft --skill open-closed-principle
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft --skill open-closed-principle

这个 Skill 是做什么的

前端设计类 Skill 关注页面结构、视觉规范和组件写法,输出通常是可运行的界面代码。

开闭原则用于辅助前端组件和样式开发。适合生成 React、Vue 或 Tailwind 代码。使用时需结合现有设计系统和路由。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。避免只生成孤立片段代码。

open-closed-principle 属于前端设计类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。涉及页面改动时应配合预览检查效果。

来源仓库内路径:skills/open-closed-principle

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/yanko-belov/code-craft --skill open-closed-pri…;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

open-closed-principle 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/yanko-belov/code-craft --skill open-closed-principle。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

open-closed-principle 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。

open-closed-principle 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。

open-closed-principle 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。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。

open-closed-principle 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 624 次,近一周安装 25 次,下载 202 次,GitHub 10 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。

open-closed-principle 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。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,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 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理前端设计类任务、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。

前端设计类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
frontend-design

前端设计 · Codex、Claude

8,823,360126,072只读MIT通过
vercel-composition-patterns

Vercel 组合模式 · Codex、Claude

3,858,81625,893需要联网MIT通过
vercel-react-native-skills

Vercel React native skills 前端 · Codex、Claude

2,468,66425,878只读MIT通过
adapt

adapt 搜索 · Codex、Claude

2,027,04023,125操作浏览器未明确通过
bolder

bolder 分析 · Codex、Claude

2,004,28823,130只读未明确通过
open-closed-principle

开闭原则 · 本页

62410只读MIT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

Open/Closed Principle (OCP)

Overview

Software entities should be open for extension, but closed for modification.

When new functionality is needed, extend the system with new code rather than modifying existing code. If adding a feature requires changing existing if/else chains, you're violating OCP.

When to Use

  • Adding a new payment method, notification channel, export format, etc.
  • Tempted to add another if/else or switch case
  • Existing code works but needs new variants
  • Feature request: "add support for X"

The Iron Rule

NEVER add another branch to an existing if/else or switch statement.

No exceptions:

  • Not for "it's just one more case"
  • Not for "we'll refactor later"
  • Not for "the pattern is already established"
  • Not for "it's faster this way"

Noting the problem while doing it anyway is still a violation.

Detection: The "Add Branch" Smell

If your solution involves this pattern, STOP:

// ❌ VIOLATION: Adding branches
if (type === 'existing') {
  // existing logic
} else if (type === 'new') {  // ← Adding this = OCP violation
  // new logic
}

Every else if you add is a modification to existing code that works.

The Correct Pattern: Strategy/Plugin

Instead of modifying, extend:

// ✅ CORRECT: Define interface, implement separately
interface PaymentMethod {
  process(amount: number): boolean;
}

class CreditCardPayment implements PaymentMethod {
  process(amount: number): boolean { /* ... */ }
}

class PayPalPayment implements PaymentMethod {
  process(amount: number): boolean { /* ... */ }
}

// Processor doesn't change when adding new methods
class PaymentProcessor {
  constructor(private methods: Map<string, PaymentMethod>) {}

  process(type: string, amount: number): boolean {
    const method = this.methods.get(type);
    if (!method) throw new Error(`Unknown: ${type}`);
    return method.process(amount);
  }

  register(type: string, method: PaymentMethod): void {
    this.methods.set(type, method);
  }
}

Adding Apple Pay? Create ApplePayPayment, call register(). Zero modifications to PaymentProcessor.

Pressure Resistance Protocol

1. "Just Add Another Case"

Pressure: "The quickest approach: add more if/else branches"

Response: Adding branches takes the same time as creating a new class. The "quick" approach creates unmaintainable code.

Action: Create interface + implementation. Register the new variant.

2. "The Pattern Is Already There"

Pressure: "The code already uses if/else, just extend it"

Response: Existing violations don't justify more violations. This is the moment to refactor.

Action:

  1. Extract interface from existing branches
  2. Convert branches to implementations
  3. Add your new implementation

3. "We'll Refactor Later"

Pressure: "Add it now, we'll clean up later"

Response: You won't. The if/else will grow to 15 cases. Technical debt compounds.

Action: Refactor now. It takes 10 minutes. Adding to the mess takes the same time.

4. "I'll Note It But Do It Anyway"

Pressure: Internal rationalization that awareness = compliance

Response: Noting the problem while violating the principle is still a violation.

Action: Don't add the branch. Refactor instead. Comments about "should use strategy pattern" are not acceptable.

Red Flags - STOP and Reconsider

If you notice ANY of these, you're about to violate OCP:

  • Adding else if to existing conditional
  • Adding case to existing switch
  • Typing the same if/else structure that's already there
  • Thinking "I'll mention this should be refactored"
  • Method has more than 3 type-based branches

All of these mean: Create an interface and implementation instead.

Refactoring Existing Violations

When you encounter existing if/else chains:

// BEFORE: 5 branches in processPayment
if (type === 'card') { ... }
else if (type === 'paypal') { ... }
else if (type === 'apple') { ... }
else if (type === 'google') { ... }
else if (type === 'crypto') { ... }

// AFTER: Strategy pattern
interface PaymentMethod { process(amount: number): boolean; }
class CardPayment implements PaymentMethod { ... }
class PayPalPayment implements PaymentMethod { ... }
// etc.

Refactor on touch: When asked to add the 6th branch, refactor instead.

Quick Reference

SituationWrongRight
Add payment methodAdd else if (type === 'new')Create NewPayment implements PaymentMethod
Add notification channelAdd else if (channel === 'slack')Create SlackNotifier implements Notifier
Add export formatAdd case 'xlsx':Create XlsxExporter implements Exporter
Add discount typeAdd else if (discount === 'bogo')Create BogoDiscount implements DiscountStrategy

Common Rationalizations (All Invalid)

ExcuseReality
"It's just one more case"That's what they said about the previous 5 cases.
"I noted it should be refactored"Notes don't count. Refactor or don't, but don't pretend awareness is action.
"The code already uses if/else"Existing violations don't justify more violations.
"Strategy pattern is overkill"3+ branches = strategy pattern is correct engineering.
"It's faster to add a branch"It's not. You type the same code either way.
"We can refactor later"You won't. The branch count will double.

The Bottom Line

Open for extension. Closed for modification.

When adding new functionality:

  1. Create an interface (if none exists)
  2. Implement the interface for the new variant
  3. Register/inject the new implementation

Never add branches. Never "note it but do it anyway." Awareness without action is not compliance.

平台分布

Codex

29.34%
按下载量换算59

Claude Code

23.04%
按下载量换算47

windsurf

17.98%
按下载量换算36

Antigravity

13.21%
按下载量换算27

trae

8.9%
按下载量换算18

OpenCode

3.48%
按下载量换算7

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills