Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

wtf.write-feature(wtf 写入功能)

wtf.write-feature 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。

wtf.write-feature 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,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 47,657。

总安装 724周安装 29GitHub Stars 3下载 234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
unknown

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:wtf.write-feature(wtf 写入功能)
来源仓库:https://github.com/xiduzo/wtf
仓库路径:skills/wtf.write-feature
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/xiduzo/wtf --skill wtf.write-feature
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 npx skills 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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/xiduzo/wtf --skill wtf.write-feature

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。

wtf.write-feature 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中支持功能需求整理。通过 npx 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装并使用。安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态,注意是否触发联网或命令执行。

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。

来源仓库内路径:skills/wtf.write-feature

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/xiduzo/wtf --skill wtf.write-feature;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

wtf.write-feature 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/xiduzo/wtf --skill wtf.write-feature。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

wtf.write-feature 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。

wtf.write-feature 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。

wtf.write-feature 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

wtf.write-feature 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 724 次,近一周安装 29 次,下载 234 次,GitHub 3 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。

wtf.write-feature 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

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。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 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。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 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
wtf.write-feature

wtf 写入功能 · 本页

7243需要联网未明确未收录

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

Write Feature

Create a GitHub Feature issue defining a user-facing capability. Fetches the parent Epic for context so the user doesn't have to repeat it.

Process

0. GitHub CLI setup

Run the setup check from ../references/gh-setup.md. Stop if gh is not installed or not authenticated. Note whether the extensions are available — this determines whether native sub-issue and dependency links are created in step 10.

Skip this step if invoked from wtf.epic-to-features or wtf.write-epic (the orchestrator already ran it), or on re-invocations within the same session (e.g. "Write next Feature" loop in step 11).

1. Identify the parent Epic

Search for recent open issues with label epic to populate options. Call AskUserQuestion with question: "Which Epic does this Feature belong to?", header: "Epic", and options pre-filled with 1–2 likely open Epic issue references inferred from GitHub search (e.g. recent open issues labeled epic). Include {label: "None", description: "No parent Epic exists yet"} as an option.

  • If an Epic number is given: fetch it immediately — gh issue view <number> — extract Goal, Context, and Success Metrics.
  • If "none": note there is no parent Epic. Proceed, but flag the gap at the end — a Feature without an Epic is a planning debt.

Wiki / glossary fetch: After fetching the Epic (or immediately if no Epic), search for any wiki pages or in-repo glossary docs relevant to this Feature's domain area. Use these to identify existing Ubiquitous Language terms before naming anything new.

2. Name the capability

Ask: "What user-facing capability is this?" (one sentence)

The capability name must follow the pattern: [Domain Actor] can [domain verb] [domain object] — where:

  • Domain Actor is the named role from the business (e.g. "Fulfilment Manager", "Payment Auditor", "Merchant") — never just "user" or "admin"
  • Domain verb is a business action (e.g. allocate, settle, reconcile, dispute, approve) — not a generic CRUD verb like "store", "query", or "render"
  • Domain object uses the Ubiquitous Language term for the concept (e.g. "Purchase Order", not "record" or "entry")

If the user gives a vague or tech-flavoured name, help them reframe it in domain terms before proceeding.

3. Clarify ambiguity before proceeding

Critically assess whether you have enough information to write a meaningful, unambiguous Feature. Cross-check the user's input against the Epic's Goal, Context, and Success Metrics.

If *anything* is unclear or underspecified — scope boundaries, target users, key behaviors, constraints, success conditions — stop and ask. Do not proceed until you have answers.

Clarification questions are split into two tiers. Work through all Required questions first. Only then move to Context-dependent questions, and only those you cannot answer from the Epic or codebase.

Required — always ask if not already clear:

  1. Who exactly is the domain actor? (named role, permissions, context — not "user")
  2. What triggers this capability? What ends it?
  3. What does success look like for the actor in domain terms?

Context-dependent — ask only if not resolvable from the Epic, codebase, or prior answers:

  1. What are the limits or constraints? (quantity, format, access level)
  2. What domain Aggregates does this Feature touch? (e.g. "Order", "Invoice", "Payment Transaction") — optional if the project does not use DDD modelling
  3. What domain Events does this Feature emit or consume? (past-tense domain names, e.g. OrderPlaced, PaymentSettled)
  4. What business invariants must hold?
  5. Are there known edge cases or failure modes?

Apply ../references/questioning-style.md throughout — one question at a time, AskUserQuestion with research-inferred options, skip anything the Epic, codebase, or prior answers already resolve. Stop when you have enough for a complete draft.

4. Derive user stories

Based on the Epic's goal, the capability name, and clarified details, write 2–4 user stories in "As a _, I want _ so that ___" format. Derive these — do not ask the user.

DDD rules for user stories (see ../references/ddd-writing-rules.md):

  • The "As a ___" role must be the domain actor name — never "user" or "admin"
  • The "I want ___" must use domain verbs and objects from the Ubiquitous Language
  • The "so that ___" must express a business outcome, not a system state

5. DDD Language Guard

Scan the capability name, user stories, and clarified context against the anti-patterns defined in ../references/ddd-writing-rules.md. Flag and correct any violations found.

If issues are found, correct them silently and note the changes when showing the draft.

6. Vertical slice assessment

Run Stage 1 of ../references/scope-gates.md on the gathered context and user stories. The Feature-specific bar: an end-to-end slice delivering one coherent, independently releasable user-facing capability. Concrete test — if this feature shipped tomorrow with no other unshipped features, could a domain actor use it and gain business value? If no, it fails.

Evaluate:

  • Passes → proceed to draft.
  • Too broad → propose smaller capability slices and confirm with the user.
  • Has dependencies → identify them against sibling Features already under this Epic: gh sub-issue list <epic_number> Decide which Features this one depends on (must ship first) and which depend on it (will be blocked until this ships). Record each dependency issue number for step 10; do not write them into the body yet.

7. Draft the Feature

Acceptance Criteria must map 1:1 to user stories. Edge Cases must name at least 2 explicit failure or boundary scenarios.

Before drafting, verify .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/FEATURE.md exists. If missing, ask the user (per ../references/questioning-style.md) whether to run /wtf.setup or cancel — then halt either way.

Use the issue body structure from @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/FEATURE.md (ignore the YAML frontmatter — use only the markdown body below the second --- delimiter). Fill in all sections with the gathered context.

DDD writing rules for this draft (see ../references/ddd-writing-rules.md for full rules):

  • Bounded Context: Fill in the Bounded Context field and name the seam if the feature crosses contexts.
  • Domain Events: List events this feature emits or consumes using past-tense domain names. These become integration contracts for child Tasks.
  • Acceptance Criteria: Every AC must be an observable, domain-relevant outcome — not an implementation detail.
  • Edge Cases: Name edge cases using domain language, not implementation state.

7b. Propose a Task list

Based on the Acceptance Criteria just drafted, derive a proposed list of Tasks that together implement this Feature. Each task should be a vertical slice — one observable, user-facing behaviour end-to-end.

Present the list as named-but-unnumbered checklist items and add them to the Proposed Tasks section of the draft:

## Proposed Tasks

- [ ] Add settlement status field to Payment Aggregate
- [ ] Expose settlement status on the payments API endpoint
- [ ] Display settlement status in the merchant dashboard UI
- [ ] Send settlement notification email when status changes

Do not ask a separate question for this — it is shown as part of the draft in step 9. The user can adjust the task list during that review.

This list is written into the Feature body and becomes the starting point for wtf.feature-to-tasks — it reads the Proposed Tasks checklist directly rather than re-deriving from ACs. Write it carefully; it will drive task creation.

8. Run Definition of Ready checklist

The DoR items (from the Feature template) are:

  • User stories agreed by PO
  • Design handoff complete
  • Acceptance criteria written and reviewed
  • Edge cases identified

Evaluate each against the draft. For each unchecked item, call AskUserQuestion with:

  • question: "The DoR item '[item name]' is not met. How should we handle it?"
  • header: "DoR item"
  • options: [{label: "Flag as blocker", description: "Add a ⛔ Blocker note to the issue body before creating"}, {label: "Waive", description: "Note the reason and proceed anyway"}]

If "Design handoff complete" is flagged as a blocker, also call AskUserQuestion with question: "Do you have a Figma link to include?", header: "Figma link", and options: [{label: "No link yet", description: "Leave Design Reference empty for now"}] — if provided via the free-text escape hatch, add it to the Design Reference section of the issue body.

9. Scope gate

Run Stage 2 of ../references/scope-gates.md on the written draft. Even if step 6 passed, drafting sometimes exposes scope that was invisible in the abstract.

Feature-level split signals (heuristics — use judgement, not rigid thresholds):

  • More than 6 Acceptance Criteria covering meaningfully different behaviors — not variations on one behavior (six ways a payment can fail is not six separate features).
  • The user stories reference more than one domain actor where each actor's need is independently satisfiable (e.g. a Manager story and a Customer story that could ship as separate features).
  • The capability name contains "and" connecting two separable actions (e.g. "Merchant can view and export settlements").
  • The Feature would require more than 6–8 Tasks to implement a single coherent behavior — likely two features bundled together.
  • There is a natural early-release point: a subset of the ACs could ship and deliver value on its own.

If no signals fire, proceed to user review. If one or more fire, follow the Stage 2 procedure: state the signals, explain the risk, propose a concrete split (two focused capability names following the [Actor] can [verb] [object] pattern), and call AskUserQuestion with the keep/split/stop options.

On Split it → return to step 3 with the chosen focused capability as the seed, carrying forward the already-fetched Epic context. Only re-ask clarification questions that the narrowed scope makes ambiguous.

10. Review with user

Show the draft. Then call AskUserQuestion with question: "Any changes before I create the issue?", header: "Review", and options: [{label: "Looks good — create the issue", description: "Proceed with issue creation"}, {label: "I have changes", description: "I want to adjust something first"}].

Apply edits, then proceed.

11. Create the issue and link to Epic

Note: Write each body to a temp file with the Write tool, then use --body-file to avoid shell quoting issues with multi-line content.

Title generation: Spawn a subagent using the claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 model to generate a concise, domain-language title from the capability name. Pass in the capability name and ask for a short title (no prefix emoji/label needed — that is added below).

Create the Feature issue:

# Ensure the label exists before creating the issue
gh label create feature --color 0075ca --description "User-facing capability delivered as a vertical slice" 2>/dev/null || true

gh issue create --title "🚀 Feature: <title>" --body-file /tmp/wtf.feature-$(date +%s)-body.md --label "feature"

Print the Feature issue URL and number.

Native relationships: If gh-sub-issue-available (from step 0), link this Feature as a child of its Epic:

gh sub-issue add <epic_number> <feature_number>

If gh-issue-dependency-available, create a blocking link for each dependency identified in step 6:

# For each issue this Feature depends on (must ship first):
gh issue-dependency add <feature_number> --blocked-by <blocker_number>

If either extension is unavailable, warn the user — do not write relationship references into the issue body.

Print the Feature issue URL and number.

Wiki / glossary update: If this Feature introduced or refined any Ubiquitous Language terms (new domain actors, domain verbs, domain events, or Bounded Context seams), update the project glossary — same rules as in wtf.write-epic step 10. Report only if a change was made.

12. Offer to continue

First, if there is a parent Epic, check its Feature Breakdown checklist: list any Feature placeholders that have not yet been created as issues (i.e. no #issue reference beside them). Mention how many remain.

Then call AskUserQuestion with:

  • question: "What's next?"
  • header: "Next step"
  • options: [{label: "Plan all Tasks", description: "Propose the full Task list for this Feature and create them one by one (default)"}, {label: "Write one Task", description: "Write a single Task for this Feature now"}, {label: "Write next Feature", description: "Write the next Feature for the same Epic (N remaining)"}, {label: "Stop here", description: "Exit — no further action"}]

*(Replace N with actual count of remaining Features, or omit the description note if there are none.)*

  • Plan all Tasks → invoke the wtf.feature-to-tasks skill, passing the Feature number in as context.
  • Write one Task → proceed with the wtf.write-task skill, passing the Feature number in as context.
  • Write next Feature → restart this skill from step 2, reusing the same Epic (skip re-fetching it). If the Epic has a Feature Breakdown list, propose the next uncreated Feature as the default capability name.
  • Stop here → exit.

If the conversation has grown long (more than ~20 exchanges), tell the user: "The context is getting long — you may want to /clear before continuing to avoid degraded quality."

平台分布

Codex

33.76%
按下载量换算79

Claude

31.43%
按下载量换算74

Cursor

18.9%
按下载量换算44

Gemini CLI

9.02%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

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