Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索敏感数据github未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

work-intake工作摄入量

Agent Skill

work-intake 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。

总安装

699

周安装

28

GitHub Stars

175

下载量

226
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:work-intake(工作摄入量)
来源仓库:https://github.com/nicepkg/ai-workflow
仓库路径:skills/work-intake
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/nicepkg/ai-workflow --skill work-intake
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/nicepkg/ai-workflow --skill work-intake

简介

work-intake 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。

  • 它支持工作内容的输入与分类管理,适用于项目启动阶段的信息收集与整理。
  • 可通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,具体路径为 skills/work-intake。
  • 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。
  • 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。

SKILL.md

Work Intake

Overview

Every work request flows through intake. This skill determines scope, gathers requirements, and routes to the appropriate workflow.

Core principle: No work is too small to track, no work is too large to decompose.

Announce at start: "I'm using work-intake to understand and scope this request before beginning."

The Intake Flow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                        REQUEST RECEIVED                              │
└─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
                              │
                              ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│               STEP 0: PROJECT BOARD READINESS (GATE)                │
│  Is GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM set?                                         │
│  Is project board accessible?                                       │
│  Are required fields configured?                                    │
└─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
                              │
                              ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    CLARIFYING QUESTIONS                              │
│  What is the user trying to achieve?                                │
│  What does success look like?                                        │
│  What constraints exist?                                             │
└─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
                              │
                              ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      SCOPE ASSESSMENT                                │
│  How much investigation is needed?                                   │
│  How many deliverables?                                              │
│  How many unknowns?                                                  │
└─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
                              │
              ┌───────────────┼───────────────┬───────────────┐
              ▼               ▼               ▼               ▼
         ┌────────┐     ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐    ┌──────────┐
         │TRIVIAL │     │  SMALL   │    │  LARGE   │    │ MASSIVE  │
         │        │     │          │    │          │    │          │
         │1 issue │     │1-3 issues│    │1 epic    │    │Initiative│
         │no unkn.│     │few unkn. │    │research  │    │multi-epic│
         └───┬────┘     └────┬─────┘    └────┬─────┘    └────┬─────┘
             │               │               │               │
             ▼               ▼               ▼               ▼
      issue-prerequisite  issue-prerequisite  epic-management  initiative-
      + project-board-    + decomposition    + research spikes  architecture
        enforcement       + project-board-  + project-board-  + project-board-
                           enforcement       enforcement       enforcement

Step 0: Project Board Readiness (GATE)

Before any work intake, verify project board infrastructure is ready.

This is a gate. Do not proceed to clarifying questions until this passes.

# Derive defaults from GITHUB_PROJECT if provided
if [ -z "$GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM" ] && [ -n "$GITHUB_PROJECT" ]; then
  NUM_CANDIDATE=$(echo "$GITHUB_PROJECT" | sed -E 's#.*/projects/([0-9]+).*#\1#')
  if [ -n "$NUM_CANDIDATE" ] && [ "$NUM_CANDIDATE" != "$GITHUB_PROJECT" ]; then
    export GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM="$NUM_CANDIDATE"
    echo "Derived GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM=$GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM from GITHUB_PROJECT"
  fi
fi

if [ -z "$GH_PROJECT_OWNER" ] && [ -n "$GITHUB_OWNER" ]; then
  export GH_PROJECT_OWNER="$GITHUB_OWNER"
  echo "Derived GH_PROJECT_OWNER=$GH_PROJECT_OWNER from GITHUB_OWNER"
fi

if [ -z "$GH_PROJECT_OWNER" ] && [ -n "$GITHUB_PROJECT" ]; then
  OWNER_CANDIDATE=$(echo "$GITHUB_PROJECT" | sed -E 's#https://github.com/(orgs|users)/([^/]+)/projects/[0-9]+#\2#')
  if [ -n "$OWNER_CANDIDATE" ] && [ "$OWNER_CANDIDATE" != "$GITHUB_PROJECT" ]; then
    export GH_PROJECT_OWNER="$OWNER_CANDIDATE"
    echo "Derived GH_PROJECT_OWNER=$GH_PROJECT_OWNER from GITHUB_PROJECT"
  fi
fi

if [ -z "$GH_PROJECT_OWNER" ]; then
  REMOTE_URL=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || true)
  OWNER_CANDIDATE=$(echo "$REMOTE_URL" | sed -E 's#(git@|https://)github.com[:/]+([^/]+)/[^/]+(\.git)?#\2#')
  if [ -n "$OWNER_CANDIDATE" ] && [ "$OWNER_CANDIDATE" != "$REMOTE_URL" ]; then
    export GH_PROJECT_OWNER="$OWNER_CANDIDATE"
    echo "Derived GH_PROJECT_OWNER=$GH_PROJECT_OWNER from git remote"
  fi
fi

# Verify environment variables are set
if [ -z "$GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM" ]; then
  echo "BLOCKED: GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM not set"
  echo "Set with: export GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM=<number>"
  exit 1
fi

if [ -z "$GH_PROJECT_OWNER" ]; then
  echo "BLOCKED: GH_PROJECT_OWNER not set"
  echo "Set with: export GH_PROJECT_OWNER=@me  # or org name"
  exit 1
fi

# Verify project is accessible
if ! gh project view "$GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM" --owner "$GH_PROJECT_OWNER" --format json > /dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "BLOCKED: Cannot access project $GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM"
  echo "Verify project exists and you have access"
  exit 1
fi

# Verify required fields exist
FIELDS=$(gh project field-list "$GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM" --owner "$GH_PROJECT_OWNER" --format json | jq -r '.fields[].name')

for required in "Status" "Priority"; do
  if ! echo "$FIELDS" | grep -q "^$required$"; then
    echo "WARNING: Required field '$required' not found in project"
    echo "Consider adding this field for full tracking support"
  fi
done
if ! echo "$FIELDS" | grep -q "^Type$" && ! echo "$FIELDS" | grep -q "^Issue Type$"; then
  echo "WARNING: Required field 'Type' (or 'Issue Type') not found in project"
  echo "Consider adding this field for full tracking support"
fi

echo "Project board ready: $GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM"

If gate fails:

  1. Configure missing environment variables
  2. Create project board if needed
  3. Add required fields (Status, Type, Priority)
  4. Re-run readiness check

Skill: project-board-enforcement


Step 1: Clarifying Questions

Before scoping, understand the request.

Do not ask questions that can be answered from the repo. First inspect:

  • README.md, FEATURES.md, BRANDING.md, docs/, Storybook, and existing routes/pages
  • Existing GitHub issues and project board items

Only ask the user for information that is still missing after reviewing the repo.

Essential Questions

QuestionPurpose
"What are you trying to achieve?"Understand the goal, not just the task
"What does success look like?"Define acceptance criteria
"Who/what is affected?"Identify scope of impact
"Are there constraints I should know about?"Time, tech, compatibility
"Is this part of something larger?"Link to existing initiatives

Discovery Questions (for unclear requests)

QuestionReveals
"Can you walk me through how this would be used?"User journey, edge cases
"What exists today?"Starting point, migration needs
"What have you already tried?"Failed approaches, constraints
"Is there prior art or examples?"Design direction

Step 2: Scope Assessment

Evaluate the request against these criteria:

Scope Matrix

FactorTrivialSmallLargeMassive
UnknownsNoneFew, answerableMany, need researchExtensive, need spikes
Deliverables1 thing2-5 things6-20 things20+ things
Code areas1-2 files3-10 files10+ filesMultiple systems
DependenciesNoneInternal onlyExternal servicesNew infrastructure
Duration< 1 session1-3 sessions1-2 weeksWeeks to months
Criteria1-23-56-1515+

Scope Decision

IF unknowns == none AND deliverables <= 2:
  → TRIVIAL: Use issue-prerequisite directly

IF unknowns == few AND deliverables <= 5:
  → SMALL: Use issue-prerequisite, maybe issue-decomposition

IF unknowns == many OR deliverables > 5:
  → LARGE: Use epic-management with research spikes

IF unknowns == extensive OR deliverables > 20 OR new_infrastructure:
  → MASSIVE: Use initiative-architecture

Step 3: Route to Appropriate Workflow

Trivial Scope

**Assessment:** This is a trivial request (single deliverable, no unknowns).

**Next step:** Creating a single issue using `issue-prerequisite`.

Route to: issue-prerequisite

Small Scope

**Assessment:** This is a small request (few deliverables, minimal unknowns).

**Plan:**
1. Create parent issue for the request
2. If needed, decompose into 2-3 sub-issues
3. Begin implementation

**Next step:** Creating issue structure using `issue-prerequisite`.

Route to: issue-prerequisite → maybe issue-decomposition

Large Scope

**Assessment:** This is a large request requiring structured planning.

**Unknowns identified:**
- [ ] Unknown 1 - needs investigation
- [ ] Unknown 2 - needs research spike

**High-level deliverables:**
1. Deliverable A
2. Deliverable B
...

**Next step:** Creating epic structure using `epic-management`.

Route to: epic-management (which will create research spikes as needed)

Massive Scope

**Assessment:** This is a massive request requiring full initiative architecture.

**Why massive:**
- [Reason: extensive unknowns / new infrastructure / multi-system / etc.]

**Initial unknowns:**
- [ ] Does X exist?
- [ ] How does Y work?
- [ ] What are constraints of Z?

**Potential scope:**
- Multiple epics likely
- New capabilities needed
- Significant research required

**Next step:** Beginning initiative architecture using `initiative-architecture`.

Route to: initiative-architecture

Resumability Checkpoint

Before routing, document the intake in memory:

# Store intake assessment
mcp__memory__create_entities([{
  "name": "Intake-[DATE]-[SHORT_DESC]",
  "entityType": "WorkIntake",
  "observations": [
    "Request: [Original request]",
    "Scope: [Trivial/Small/Large/Massive]",
    "Unknowns: [List]",
    "Route: [Target skill]",
    "Status: [Routing/In Progress/Complete]"
  ]
}])

Examples

Example: Trivial

Request: "Make the login page button a little lighter."

Intake:

  • Goal: Adjust button color
  • Success: Button is lighter
  • Unknowns: None (CSS change)
  • Deliverables: 1 (color change)
  • Scope: TRIVIAL

→ Route to issue-prerequisite

Example: Large

Request: "Add dark mode to the application."

Intake:

  • Goal: Theme switching capability
  • Success: Users can toggle dark/light mode
  • Unknowns:

- Current theming approach? - Component library support? - Persistence mechanism?

  • Deliverables: ~10 (theme tokens, components, toggle, persistence, etc.)
  • Scope: LARGE

→ Route to epic-management

Example: Massive

Request: "Add the ability for users to log in by clicking on a popup in their phone."

Intake:

  • Goal: Mobile push notification login
  • Success: User receives push, taps, logged in
  • Unknowns:

- Is there a mobile app? → Research spike - Push notification infrastructure? → Research spike - Authentication flow design? → Research spike - Security requirements? → Research spike

  • Deliverables: 30+ (app work, backend, auth, notifications, etc.)
  • Scope: MASSIVE

→ Route to initiative-architecture

Red Flags That Indicate Larger Scope

Watch for these phrases that suggest the request is larger than it appears:

PhraseLikely Scope
"Just add..." + new capabilityLarge (new capability = infrastructure)
"Users should be able to..."Large (user-facing = full stack)
"Integrate with..."Large (external = API, auth, error handling)
"Like [other product]..."Massive (feature parity = extensive)
"Mobile/app/notification"Massive (unless app exists)
"Real-time/sync/live"Large (infrastructure)

Never Turn Away Work

No matter how massive the request:

  1. Acknowledge the goal - "I understand you want X"
  2. Explain the process - "This will require structured planning"
  3. Begin investigation - Start with what we don't know
  4. Document everything - Every decision, every finding
  5. Break it down - Until we have tractable pieces

The path from "massive request" to "implementation" is:

Massive Request
    → Initiative Architecture (document unknowns, create research spikes)
    → Research Spikes (answer unknowns)
    → Epic Structure (group deliverables)
    → Issue Decomposition (create tractable tasks)
    → Implementation (one issue at a time)

Checklist

  • Project board readiness verified (Step 0 gate passed)
  • GITHUB_PROJECT_NUM and GH_PROJECT_OWNER set
  • Asked clarifying questions
  • Understood the goal (not just the task)
  • Identified unknowns
  • Counted deliverables
  • Assessed scope (Trivial/Small/Large/Massive)
  • Documented intake in memory
  • Routed to appropriate skill (with project-board-enforcement)

Skill: project-board-enforcement

Gate: Cannot proceed to any downstream skill without project board readiness verified.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenCode

28.4%
按下载量换算64

Cursor

22.36%
按下载量换算51

Claude Code

16.91%
按下载量换算38

github-copilot

12.61%
按下载量换算28

Gemini CLI

6.33%
按下载量换算14

cline

3.36%
按下载量换算8

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

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 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills