Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

pipeline-auditor(管道审核员)

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

pipeline-auditor 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,权限为权限未标注;许可证为 MIT,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 47,223。

总安装 744周安装 31GitHub Stars 422下载 248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:pipeline-auditor(管道审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills
仓库路径:skills/pipeline-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills --skill pipeline-auditor
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/willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills --skill pipeline-auditor

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。

pipeline-auditor 辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险和认证流程排查。适合梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能将工具输出直接当作最终结论,需人工复核关键判断。涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限和脱敏方式。

建议在测试环境验证后再应用于真实系统,避免误操作导致安全风险。

来源仓库内路径:skills/pipeline-auditor

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/willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills --ski…;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

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

pipeline-auditor 怎么安装?

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

pipeline-auditor 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。

pipeline-auditor 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

pipeline-auditor 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。

pipeline-auditor 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 744 次,近一周安装 31 次,下载 248 次,GitHub 422 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。

pipeline-auditor 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。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、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。

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
pipeline-auditor

管道审核员 · 本页

744422权限未标注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

Pipeline Auditor (draft audit + regression)

Purpose: a deterministic “regression test” for the writing stage.

It answers:

  • did we leak placeholders or planner talk?
  • did citation scope drift?
  • did the draft fall back to generator voice (navigation/narration templates)?
  • is citation density/health sufficient for a survey-like draft?

This skill is analysis-only. It does not edit content. For survey/deep, style/citation-shape violations are blocking by default.

Inputs

  • output/DRAFT.md
  • outline/outline.yml
  • Optional (recommended):

- outline/evidence_bindings.jsonl - citations/ref.bib

Outputs

  • output/AUDIT_REPORT.md

What it checks (deterministic)

A150++ citation targets (used by the auditor):

  • Per-H3: >=12 unique citations (deep: >=14).
  • Global: >=150 unique citations across the full draft (recommended target: 165; deep floor: 165).
  • Placeholder leakage: ellipsis (..., …), TODO markers, scaffold tags.
  • Outline alignment: section/subsection order vs outline/outline.yml.
  • Survey tables (survey deliverable): require >=2 Markdown tables in the merged draft (index tables live in outline/tables_index.md) (inserted by section-merger from outline/tables_appendix.md).
  • Paper voice anti-patterns:

- narration templates (This subsection..., In this subsection...) - slide navigation (Next, we move..., We now turn to...) - pipeline voice (this run, “pipeline/stage/workspace” in prose)

  • Evidence-policy disclaimer spam: repeated “abstract-only/title-only/provisional” boilerplate inside H3 bodies.
  • Meta survey-guidance phrasing: survey synthesis/comparisons should....
  • Synthesis stem repetition: repeated Taken together,... and similar high-signal generator stems.
  • Numeric claim context: numbers without minimal evaluation context tokens (benchmark/dataset/metric/budget/cost).
  • Citation health (if citations/ref.bib exists): undefined keys, duplicates, basic formatting red flags.
  • Citation-shape hard gate (survey/deep): no adjacent citation blocks ([@a] [@b]), no duplicate keys inside one block ([@a; @a]), and per-H3 mid-sentence citation ratio >=30%.
  • Citation scope (if outline/evidence_bindings.jsonl exists): citations used per H3 should stay within the bound evidence set.

How to use the report (routing table)

Treat output/AUDIT_REPORT.md as a “what to fix next” router.

Common FAIL families -> responsible stage/skill:

  • Placeholders / leaked scaffolds

- Fix: C2–C4 artifacts are not clean. Route to subsection-briefs / evidence-draft / writer-context-pack, then rewrite affected sections.

  • Missing overview tables (draft has <2 tables)

- Fix: ensure table-schema + appendix-table-writer produced outline/tables_appendix.md (>=2 tables, citation-backed, no placeholders), then rerun section-merger (tables insert as an Appendix block by default).

  • Planner talk in transitions / narrator bridges

- Fix: rerun transition-weaver (and ensure briefs include bridge_terms / contrast_hook), then re-merge.

  • Narration templates / slide navigation inside H3

- Fix: rewrite the failing sections/S*.md via writer-selfloop (local, section-level) or subsection-polisher.

  • Evidence-policy disclaimer spam

- Fix: keep evidence policy once in Intro/Related Work (front matter), delete repeats in H3 (use draft-polisher or local section rewrites).

  • Citation scope drift (out-of-scope bibkeys)

- Fix: either (a) rewrite the subsection to stay in-scope, or (b) fix mapping/bindings (section-mapper → evidence-binder) and regenerate packs.

  • Global unique citations too low

- Fix: citation-diversifier → citation-injector (NO NEW FACTS), then draft-polisher.

  • Intro/Related Work too thin / too few cites

- Fix: rewrite the corresponding sections/S<sec_id>.md front-matter file via writer-selfloop (front-matter path) using dense positioning + method paragraph.

Prevention guidance (what upstream writers should do)

If you want the auditor to PASS *without* a heavy polish loop:

  • Start each H3 with a content claim + thesis (avoid narration templates).
  • Use explicit contrasts and at least one evaluation anchor paragraph.
  • Embed citations per claim (avoid trailing cite dumps).
  • Put evidence-policy limitations once in the front matter, not in every H3.

Script

Quick Start

  • python.codex/skills/pipeline-auditor/scripts/run.py --help
  • python.codex/skills/pipeline-auditor/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

All Options

  • --workspace <dir>
  • --unit-id <U###> (optional; for logs)
  • --inputs <semicolon-separated> (rare override; prefer defaults)
  • --outputs <semicolon-separated> (rare override; default writes output/AUDIT_REPORT.md)
  • --checkpoint <C#> (optional)

Examples

  • Run audit after global-reviewer and before LaTeX/PDF:

- python.codex/skills/pipeline-auditor/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

Troubleshooting

Issue: audit fails due to undefined citations

Fix:

  • Regenerate citations with citation-verifier and ensure citations/ref.bib contains every cited key.

Issue: audit fails due to narration-style navigation phrases

Fix:

  • Rewrite as argument bridges (content-bearing handoffs, no navigation commentary) in the failing sections/* files, then re-merge.

Issue: audit fails due to "unique citations too low"

Fix:

  • Run citation-diversifier to produce output/CITATION_BUDGET_REPORT.md.
  • Apply it via citation-injector (edits output/DRAFT.md, writes output/CITATION_INJECTION_REPORT.md).
  • Then run draft-polisher → global-reviewer → auditor.

平台分布

Claude Code

30.86%
按下载量换算77

Gemini CLI

22.54%
按下载量换算56

Cursor

17.12%
按下载量换算42

Codex

13%
按下载量换算32

OpenCode

7.1%
按下载量换算18

Antigravity

3.42%
按下载量换算8

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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