Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

synaptic-pruning(突触修剪)

synaptic-pruning 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 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。

synaptic-pruning 是研究检索类 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,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 14,061。

总安装 8,861周安装 355GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 2,868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:synaptic-pruning(突触修剪)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jcools1977/synaptic-pruning
安装命令:
openclaw skills install synaptic-pruning
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 synaptic-pruning

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。

识别代码中的残留结构如未使用导入、僵尸配置与孤立测试。适用于代码清理、技术债务治理或项目瘦身优化场景。扫描项目文件后输出可删除项列表供人工确认执行。具备文件修改能力,操作前务必备份重要代码仓库。建议在非生产环境先行验证检测结果可靠性。

synaptic-pruning 属于研究检索类 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 synaptic-pruning;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

synaptic-pruning 怎么安装?

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

synaptic-pruning 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。

synaptic-pruning 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。

synaptic-pruning 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。

synaptic-pruning 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 8,861 次,近一周安装 355 次,下载 2,868 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。

synaptic-pruning 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

  • 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。

先想清楚的地方

  • 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 OpenClaw,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
synaptic-pruning

突触修剪 · 本页

8,861—需要联网MIT-0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

name
synaptic-pruning
version
1.0.0
description
>
author
J. DeVere Cooley
category
cognitive-diagnostics
tags
metadata
openclaw
emoji
🧠
os
["darwin", "linux", "win32"]
cost
free
requires_api
false
tags

Synaptic Pruning

"A brain that never prunes becomes a brain that can't think. A codebase that never prunes becomes a codebase that can't change."

What It Does

Your linter finds unused imports. Your compiler finds unreachable code. Synaptic Pruning finds vestigial organs — code that is technically reachable, technically used, technically valid — but serves no living purpose.

In neuroscience, synaptic pruning eliminates neural connections the brain no longer needs. It's not destruction — it's *maturation*. A child's brain has more synapses than an adult's. The adult brain is more capable because it has fewer.

Your codebase needs the same process.

The Seven Vestigial Classes

1. Zombie Features

Features that are fully implemented, fully compiled, fully deployed — and fully unused. No user path reaches them. No button triggers them. They exist because nobody was confident enough to delete them.

Detection: Trace every UI element and API endpoint to user-reachable paths.
Flag features with zero invocations in the last N deployment cycles.

2. Fossil Configurations

Config keys, feature flags, and environment settings that are read by code but never influence behavior. The if branch they gate is always true (or always false). They're the appendix of your architecture.

# This flag has been 'true' in every environment for 2 years
feature_flags:
  enable_new_checkout: true  # "new" checkout is the only checkout
  use_v2_api: true           # v1 was decommissioned 18 months ago
  experimental_search: true  # shipped to 100% of users last March

Detection: Evaluate every config-gated branch. If the gate has been in the same state across all environments for > N days, the gate is a fossil.

3. Orphaned Tests

Tests that pass, appear in coverage reports, and validate... nothing that matters. They test functions that were refactored away, mock interfaces that no longer exist, or assert behavior that was intentionally changed (and the test was updated to match the new behavior, making it a tautology).

def test_calculate_discount():
    # This test was updated when discounts were removed.
    # It now tests that the function returns 0. Always.
    # It will never fail. It validates nothing.
    assert calculate_discount(any_input) == 0

Detection: Identify tests where every assertion is trivially true, where mocks replace 100% of real behavior, or where the tested function's actual callsites have all been removed.

4. Compatibility Shims

Adapters, wrappers, and translation layers that were added for a migration that completed. The old system is gone. The shim remains, adding a layer of indirection that obscures the actual architecture.

// Added during the Angular → React migration (2023)
// Angular was fully removed in 2024
// This wrapper still wraps every React component for no reason
export function withAngularCompat(Component) {
  return Component; // literally returns its input unchanged
}

Detection: Find wrapper/adapter functions where input === output, translation layers where source and target are the same format, and abstraction layers with exactly one implementation.

5. Defensive Fossils

Error handling, validation, and guard clauses that protect against conditions that the current architecture makes impossible. They were necessary under a previous design. Now they're scar tissue.

// This nil check was necessary when getUser() could return nil
// After the auth rewrite, getUser() always returns a valid user or panics
// This branch is unreachable but looks important
if user == nil {
    return ErrUserNotFound // this line has never executed in production
}

Detection: Analyze guard clauses against current control flow. If a predecessor guarantees the condition can never be true, the guard is a fossil.

6. Documentation Ghosts

README sections, API docs, and inline comments that describe systems, processes, or architectures that no longer exist. They don't cause bugs — they cause *wrong mental models*, which is worse.

## Deployment Process
1. SSH into the staging server        ← We use Kubernetes now
2. Run the deploy script              ← Replaced by GitHub Actions
3. Verify the health check endpoint   ← Endpoint was renamed
4. Update the load balancer config    ← Handled automatically by Istio

Detection: Cross-reference documentation commands, paths, and process descriptions against actual project tooling, CI/CD configs, and infrastructure definitions.

7. Evolutionary Dead Ends

Entire modules or subsystems that represent an architectural direction the team tried and abandoned — but the code was never fully removed. Partial implementations, experimental branches merged to main, or V2 rewrites that were started but never finished.

src/
├── search/           ← Current search (Elasticsearch)
├── search-v2/        ← Started migrating to Meilisearch. Stopped.
│   ├── index.ts      ← 40% implemented
│   ├── client.ts     ← Works but unused
│   └── README.md     ← "TODO: finish migration"

Detection: Find directories/modules with high internal cohesion but zero external references. Flag modules where >50% of exports are unused outside the module.

The Pruning Process

Phase 1: CENSUS
├── Catalog every function, class, config, test, and doc section
├── Build a full reachability graph from user-facing entry points
├── Map every feature flag and its historical states
└── Timestamp: when was each unit last meaningfully modified?

Phase 2: VITALITY CHECK
├── For each unit, determine: is it alive, dormant, or dead?
│   ├── Alive: reachable, executed, behavior matters
│   ├── Dormant: reachable but behavior is constant/trivial
│   └── Dead: unreachable, untriggered, or tautological
├── Score confidence (how certain is the classification)
└── Flag borderline cases for human review

Phase 3: PRUNING PLAN
├── Group vestigial code by class (1-7 above)
├── Calculate removal safety (what could break)
├── Estimate cognitive load reduction (lines × complexity × frequency-of-reading)
├── Generate ordered removal plan (safest-first)
└── Produce before/after complexity metrics

Phase 4: MATURATION REPORT
├── Total vestigial burden (lines, files, cognitive weight)
├── Recommended pruning order with safety scores
├── Estimated improvement in onboarding time
└── Codebase age distribution (living vs. fossil)

Vitality Scoring

ScoreStateAction
100Fully aliveNo action
75-99Alive but calcifyingMonitor for drift
50-74DormantReview for removal
25-49Effectively deadSchedule removal
1-24Dead weightRemove immediately
0Never livedDelete with prejudice

Output Format

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║                  SYNAPTIC PRUNING REPORT                    ║
║              Codebase Maturity: 67% (Growing)               ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║                                                              ║
║  VESTIGIAL BURDEN: 4,217 lines across 38 files              ║
║  COGNITIVE WEIGHT: ~12% of total codebase complexity         ║
║  ESTIMATED ONBOARDING REDUCTION: 1.5 days                   ║
║                                                              ║
║  BY CLASS:                                                   ║
║  ├── Zombie Features ......... 2 features, 890 lines        ║
║  ├── Fossil Configurations ... 14 flags, 3 always-true      ║
║  ├── Orphaned Tests .......... 7 tests, 340 lines           ║
║  ├── Compatibility Shims ..... 4 wrappers, identity funcs   ║
║  ├── Defensive Fossils ....... 23 unreachable guards        ║
║  ├── Documentation Ghosts .... 3 sections, 2 READMEs       ║
║  └── Evolutionary Dead Ends .. 1 module (search-v2/)        ║
║                                                              ║
║  SAFE TO PRUNE NOW: 2,841 lines (0 risk)                    ║
║  PRUNE WITH REVIEW: 1,376 lines (low risk)                  ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

When to Invoke

  • After a major version release (prune the migration artifacts)
  • Before onboarding new team members (reduce noise)
  • Quarterly codebase health reviews
  • After any "why does this exist?" question in code review

Why It Matters

Dead code doesn't just waste disk space. It wastes attention. Every vestigial function a developer reads, every fossil config they try to understand, every zombie feature they accidentally modify — that's cognitive load stolen from productive work.

The leanest codebases aren't the ones that added the least. They're the ones that pruned the most.

Zero external dependencies. Zero API calls. Pure evolutionary analysis.

平台分布

OpenClaw

96.44%
按下载量换算2,766

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

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。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