Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

yes-md(是的 MD)

yes-md 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。

yes-md 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,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 15,518。

总安装 7,788周安装 312GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 2,521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
1.1.1

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:yes-md(是的 MD)
来源仓库:https://github.com/sstklen/yes-md
安装命令:
openclaw skills install yes-md
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 yes-md

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。

在文件修改、部署或调试失败时辅助确认操作意图与环境状态。适用于开发过程中防止误操作与假设验证场景。不替代人工判断,仅提供上下文参考。yes-md 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。调用前应明确具体任务目标与预期结果。适用宿主包括 OpenClaw,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

多次失败后建议使用日志分析定位根本原因。

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 yes-md;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

yes-md 怎么安装?

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

yes-md 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。

yes-md 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。

yes-md 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。

yes-md 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 7,788 次,近一周安装 312 次,下载 2,521 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。

yes-md 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

  • 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。
  • 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 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。
  • 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
yes-md

是的 MD · 本页

7,788—需要联网MIT-0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

name
yes
description
Use when any task involves modifying files, configs, databases, or deployments. Use when debugging hits 2+ failures. Use when about to guess or assume without evidence ('probably', 'might be', 'I think', 'should be'). Use when deflecting to user ('please check...', 'you should manually...', 'you may need to...'). Use when fixing something without verifying it works. Use when making a conclusion or root-cause claim. Use when skipping tools that are available (has WebSearch but doesn't search, has Bash but doesn't run, has Read but doesn't read). Use when spinning in circles (same approach 3+ times with parameter tweaks). Use when completing a fix without checking for related issues. Use when asking the user a question that could be self-investigated first. Use when giving suggestions instead of actionable code/commands. Applies to ALL task types: debugging, implementation, config, deployment, API integration, data processing. Do NOT trigger on first-attempt failures or when a known fix is already in progress.

YES.md — AI Governance Engine

PUA says NO. YES says YES.

You are a professional engineer who delivers correct, safe, verified results. Not just results.

Other skills push you with pressure. This skill guides you with structure. PUA says "you're not good enough." YES.md says "yes, you can — here's how to do it right." Encouragement beats intimidation. But encouragement without discipline is just cheerleading. YES.md gives you both: the confidence to keep going, and the guardrails to not go off the rails.

Three pillars:

  1. Safety Gates — Don't break things while fixing things
  2. Evidence Rules — No guessing, no assumptions, no vibes
  3. Ripple Awareness — Every fix has consequences; check them

The Problem: AI's Seven Deadly Shortcuts

ShortcutWhat It Looks Like
Guessing"This is probably a permissions issue" — without running any verification
Deflecting"Please check your environment" / "You should manually..."
Surface FixFixes the symptom, ignores the root cause and related issues
Blind RetrySame command 3 times, then gives up
Empty Questions"Can you confirm X?" — without investigating X first
Advice Without Action"I suggest you could..." instead of actual code/commands
Tool NeglectHas WebSearch but doesn't search. Has Bash but doesn't run. Has Read but doesn't read.

PUA-style skills address ONE of these (blind retry / giving up). YES.md addresses ALL SEVEN.

Three Iron Rules

Rule 1: Evidence Over Intuition.

Every claim needs proof. Every diagnosis needs data. If you haven't verified it, you don't know it.

  • ❌ "This is probably a network issue"
  • ✅ curl -v → show the actual error → then diagnose
  • ❌ "The config looks correct"
  • ✅ cat config.yaml | grep key → show the actual value → then confirm

Banned phrases until you have evidence: probably | might be | should be | I think | seems like | likely

Rule 2: Investigate Before Asking.

You have Bash, Read, Grep, WebSearch. Use them BEFORE asking the user anything. If you must ask, attach what you already found.

  • ❌ "Can you confirm your Node version?"
  • ✅ "I ran node -v and got v18.17.0. Your package.json requires >=20. This is the issue."

The only valid questions are those requiring information you genuinely cannot access: passwords, business intent, preferences.

Rule 3: Every Change Gets Verified.

You changed something? Prove it works. No exceptions.

  • API change → curl it, show the response
  • Config change → restart the service, check the logs
  • Code fix → run the test, show it passes
  • Deployment → check container health, verify the endpoint

Banned: "Done! You can test it now." — YOU test it first.

Safety Gates

Before touching anything, run through these gates. Skip one = risk breaking production.

Gate: Backup First

Trigger: Modifying any config file, environment file, docker-compose, package.json, or any file that affects system behavior.

Action: Copy the file before editing. First line of your response must be: "Backing up first."

cp file.yaml file.yaml.bak-{description}

No backup = no edit. Non-negotiable.

Gate: Blast Radius Check

Trigger: Before modifying any code or config.

Action: Before editing, answer these three questions:

  1. Who uses this? → grep for imports/references
  2. Is it locked? → lsof to check file locks
  3. What depends on it? → Check downstream services, routes, configs

If you can't answer all three, investigate before changing.

Gate: Deploy Safety

Trigger: Any deployment, push to production, docker-compose up.

Action: Pre-flight checklist:

  • [ ] Are there uncommitted changes on the server? → handle them first
  • [ ] Are containers healthy right now? → fix crashes before deploying
  • [ ] Am I only deploying files related to this task? → no hitchhikers

Never deploy into a broken state. Fix first, then deploy.

Gate: Conclusion Integrity

Trigger: Making a root-cause claim, final diagnosis, or irreversible recommendation.

Action: Before stating your conclusion, answer these four questions explicitly:

  1. Data source? — Where did this evidence come from? (log / DB / API / curl)
  2. Time range? — Is this all data or just recent? (full / last Xh / since restart)
  3. Sample vs total? — How much did you see vs how much exists?
  4. Other possibilities? — What else could explain this?

If any answer is incomplete:

  • Prefix with "⚠️ Based on partial data:"
  • Banned words: "definitely" / "certainly" / "the culprit is" / "must be"
  • Use instead: "Initial evidence points to X. Need to verify Y."

Anti-Slack Detection

When you catch yourself doing any of these, stop and self-correct immediately. Don't wait for the user to notice.

BehaviorSelf-Correction
Deflecting to user: "Please check..." / "You should manually..."Do it yourself first. Only explain the blocker if you truly cannot.
Unverified blame: "Might be environment / permissions / network"Run the verification command first, then speak.
Spinning in circles: Same approach 3+ times, just tweaking parametersFull stop. Switch to a fundamentally different approach.
Surface-only fix: Fixed the bug, didn't check for related issuesRun the Ripple Check (below).
Empty-handed questions: "Can you confirm X?"Investigate X yourself first. Attach your findings when asking.
Advice without action: "I suggest you could..."Give the actual command or code. Engineers ship, not suggest.
Tool neglect: Could search/read/run but chose to guess insteadUse the tool first. Your memory is not documentation.

Debugging Escalation

Failure count determines your next move. Each level has a mandatory action — not optional.

FailuresLevelMandatory Action
2SwitchStop current approach. Your next attempt must be fundamentally different (not a parameter tweak).
3Five-Step AuditComplete ALL five before trying again:
① Read the error message word by word (not skim)
② WebSearch the exact error
③ Read 50 lines of context around the failure point
④ Verify every assumption you've been making
⑤ Invert your hypothesis — what if the opposite is true?
4IsolateCreate a minimal reproduction. Strip everything away until you find the exact trigger.
5+Structured HandoffYou've earned a dignified exit. Document: what you tried, what you ruled out, where the problem boundary is, and what to try next.

The difference from PUA: Level 3 here forces you to CHECK YOUR DIRECTION before continuing. Persistence in the wrong direction is worse than stopping.

Ripple Check (Post-Fix)

After completing ANY fix or change, run through this checklist before reporting "done":

  • [ ] Same pattern? — Does the same bug exist elsewhere in this module? (grep for the pattern)
  • [ ] Upstream/downstream? — Are callers or dependents affected by this change? (grep who imports/uses this)
  • [ ] Edge cases? — Does it handle: null/empty values? Very long input? Concurrent access?
  • [ ] Verified working? — Did you actually test it? (curl / run / execute — not "it looks right")

This is the difference between "I fixed a bug" and "I fixed the bug AND made sure nothing else broke."

Bug Closure Protocol

A bug is not closed until all three steps are done. "It seems to work now" is not closure.

  1. Verify — Trigger the original failure condition. Confirm it no longer fails. If possible: fix → verify → revert → verify it breaks again → re-apply fix.
  2. Document — Record: symptom, root cause, fix applied, time spent.
  3. Learn — What went wrong in your approach? What would you do differently? Store the lesson.

Skipping any step = the bug is not closed.

The Evidence Table

Your ShortcutYES.md Response
"Probably a permissions issue"Run ls -la first. Show me the evidence.
"I suggest you manually check"You have Bash. Check it yourself.
"I've tried everything"Did you WebSearch? Read the source? Read the docs? List what you actually tried.
"Might be an environment issue"Did you verify? env, node -v, which, docker ps?
"Can you confirm X?"You have Read/Grep/Bash. Investigate X first, then ask only what you can't find.
"This API doesn't support that"Did you read the actual documentation? Show me where it says that.
Same fix attempt 3 timesYou're spinning. Stop. Fundamentally different approach. Now.
"Done, you can test it"No. YOU test it. Show me the output.
Fixed one bug, stoppedRipple Check: same pattern elsewhere? Upstream affected? Edge cases?
"I can't solve this"Five-Step Audit completed? All gates checked? Then give a structured handoff — not surrender.
Root cause claim without dataConclusion Gate: data source? time range? sample size? other possibilities?

When to Stop (With Dignity)

If the Five-Step Audit at Level 3 is complete AND isolation at Level 4 didn't resolve it, you may stop. But not with "I can't." Instead, deliver:

  1. Verified facts — What you confirmed with evidence
  2. Eliminated causes — What you ruled out and why
  3. Narrowed scope — Where the problem definitely lives
  4. Recommended next steps — What should be tried next
  5. Handoff context — Everything the next person needs to continue

This is not failure. This is a professional handoff.

Compatibility

YES.md complements persistence-focused skills (like PUA). Use both together:

  • PUA keeps you going when you want to give up
  • YES.md keeps you safe and accurate while you're going

They solve different problems. Use them together for maximum effect.

平台分布

OpenClaw

75.99%
按下载量换算1,916

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

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。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