@pigcloud/skills 1.0.5 → 1.0.7

package/scripts/ci-validator.sh

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 #!/bin/bash
-# ci-validator.sh - Skills CI 验证脚本
-# 用于验证技能文件的完整性和规范性
+# ci-validator.sh - Skills CI 楠岃瘉鑴氭湰
+# 鐢ㄤ簬楠岃瘉鎶€鑳芥枃浠剁殑瀹屾暣鎬у拰瑙勮寖鎬?
 
 set -e
 
 echo "=== Skills CI Validator ==="
 
-# 1. 检查技能文件完整性
+# 1. 妫€鏌ユ妧鑳芥枃浠跺畬鏁存€?
 echo "[1/5] Checking skill files..."
 SKILLS_DIR="${SKILLS_DIR:-.trae/skills}"
 ERROR_COUNT=0
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ ERROR_COUNT=0
 for skill in $(find "$SKILLS_DIR" -name "SKILL.md" -type f); do
     skill_name=$(basename $(dirname "$skill"))
     
-    # 检查 frontmatter
+    # 妫€鏌?frontmatter
     if ! grep -q "^name:" "$skill"; then
         echo "ERROR: Missing 'name' in $skill"
         ERROR_COUNT=$((ERROR_COUNT + 1))
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ for skill in $(find "$SKILLS_DIR" -name "SKILL.md" -type f); do
         echo "WARN: Missing 'version' in $skill"
     fi
     
-    # 检查必要章节
+    # 妫€鏌ュ繀瑕佺珷鑺?
     for section in "When to Run" "Workflow"; do
         if ! grep -q "## $section" "$skill"; then
             echo "ERROR: Missing '$section' section in $skill"
@@ -38,21 +38,21 @@ for skill in $(find "$SKILLS_DIR" -name "SKILL.md" -type f); do
         fi
     done
     
-    # 检查 Lifecycle Position（新增）
+    # 妫€鏌?Lifecycle Position锛堟柊澧烇級
     if ! grep -q "## Lifecycle Position" "$skill"; then
         echo "WARN: Missing 'Lifecycle Position' in $skill (recommended)"
     fi
     
-    echo "✓ $skill_name valid"
+    echo "鉁?$skill_name valid"
 done
 
 if [ "$ERROR_COUNT" -gt 0 ]; then
     echo "ERROR: $ERROR_COUNT errors found in skill files"
     exit 1
 fi
-echo "✓ Skill files valid"
+echo "鉁?Skill files valid"
 
-# 2. 检查生命周期映射完整性
+# 2. 妫€鏌ョ敓鍛藉懆鏈熸槧灏勫畬鏁存€?
 echo "[2/5] Checking lifecycle mapping..."
 LIFECYCLE_STAGES="define plan build verify review ship meta"
 for stage in $LIFECYCLE_STAGES; do
@@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ for stage in $LIFECYCLE_STAGES; do
     if [ "$count" -eq 0 ] && [ "$stage" != "meta" ]; then
         echo "WARN: No skill mapped to '$stage' stage"
     else
-        echo "✓ $stage stage has $count skills"
+        echo "鉁?$stage stage has $count skills"
     fi
 done
 
-# 3. 检查技能间依赖一致性
+# 3. 妫€鏌ユ妧鑳介棿渚濊禆涓€鑷存€?
 echo "[3/5] Checking skill dependencies..."
 for skill in $(find "$SKILLS_DIR" -name "SKILL.md" -type f); do
     deps=$(grep "^dependencies:" "$skill" | sed 's/dependencies: //' | tr ',' ' ' 2>/dev/null || echo "")
@@ -81,34 +81,34 @@ if [ "$ERROR_COUNT" -gt 0 ]; then
     echo "ERROR: Dependency errors found"
     exit 1
 fi
-echo "✓ Dependencies valid"
+echo "鉁?Dependencies valid"
 
-# 4. 检查 Reference Checklists
+# 4. 妫€鏌?Reference Checklists
 echo "[4/5] Checking reference checklists..."
-REQUIRED_CHECKLISTS="coding-checklist.md solid-checklist.md security-checklist.md performance-checklist.md anti-rationalization.md"
+REQUIRED_CHECKLISTS="coding-checklist.md solid-checklist.md security-checklist.md performance-auditlist.md anti-rationalization.md"
 for checklist in $REQUIRED_CHECKLISTS; do
     found=$(find "$SKILLS_DIR" -name "$checklist" -type f | wc -l)
     if [ "$found" -eq 0 ]; then
         echo "WARN: Missing reference checklist '$checklist'"
     else
-        echo "✓ Found $checklist"
+        echo "鉁?Found $checklist"
     fi
 done
 
-# 5. 检查 Agent Personas 和 Slash Commands
+# 5. 妫€鏌?Agent Personas 鍜?Slash Commands
 echo "[5/5] Checking agent personas and slash commands..."
 if [ ! -f "$SKILLS_DIR/../references/agent-personas.md" ]; then
     echo "WARN: Missing agent-personas.md"
 else
-    echo "✓ Found agent-personas.md"
+    echo "鉁?Found agent-personas.md"
 fi
 
 if [ ! -f "$SKILLS_DIR/../references/slash-commands.md" ]; then
     echo "WARN: Missing slash-commands.md"
 else
-    echo "✓ Found slash-commands.md"
+    echo "鉁?Found slash-commands.md"
 fi
 
 echo "=== CI Validator Complete ==="
 echo "All checks passed!"
-exit 0
+exit 0

package/scripts/validate-skill-shapes.js

@@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ const path = require('path');
 const repoRoot = path.join(__dirname, '..');
 const skillsRoot = path.join(repoRoot, 'skills');
 const enhancedTemplateSkills = new Set([
-  'spec',
+  'spec-refinement',
   'technical-design',
   'feature-build',
   'code-review',
-  'security-review',
-  'performance-check',
-  'extract-business-facts',
+  'security-audit',
+  'performance-audit',
+  'business-fact-extraction',
 ]);
 const enhancedSections = [
   '## Quick Start',
@@ -140,3 +140,4 @@ try {
   console.error(error.message);
   process.exitCode = 1;
 }
+

package/skills/{api-docs → api-contract-docs}/SKILL.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
-name: api-docs
-description: 当接口需要可复用参考文档时，记录稳定的 API 行为、请求/响应契约和示例
+name: api-contract-docs
+description: 当接口需要可复用参考文档时，记录稳定的 API 行为、请求、响应契约和示例
 lifecycle_stage: capture
 rule_profile: api
 dependencies:
-  - spec
+  - spec-refinement
 triggers:
   - API docs
   - contract
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ refs:
   - rules/index.md
 ---
 
-# API Docs
+# API Contract Docs
 
 ## Purpose
 
@@ -74,3 +74,4 @@ Write clear API documentation and contracts for already defined behavior.
 - `skills/references/prompt-replay-checklist.md`
 - `skills/references/full-chain-replay-scenarios.md`
 - `rules/index.md`
+

package/skills/{extract-business-facts → business-fact-extraction}/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
-name: extract-business-facts
-description: Extract business facts, current behaviors, invariants, and terminology from code, tests, logs, and docs when Codex needs to reverse-engineer what the system actually does or prepare evidence-backed input for domain modeling, spec refinement, or knowledge capture.
+name: business-fact-extraction
+description: 当 Codex 需要逆向理解系统真实行为或为领域建模、需求细化或知识沉淀准备证据时，从代码、测试、日志和文档中提取业务事实、当前行为、不变量和术语
 lifecycle_stage: analysis
 rule_profile: modeling
 dependencies: []
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ workflow:
   - mark each fact as evidence-backed, inferred, or unknown
   - summarize gaps, contradictions, and open questions
   - choose the destination knowledge-base files before writing the final note
-  - hand off to domain-modeling, spec, or knowledge-capture
+  - hand off to domain-modeling, spec-refinement, or knowledge-capture
 gates:
   - stop at fact extraction
   - do not design a new solution
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ refs:
   - docs/codewiki-knowledge-base.md
 ---
 
-# Extract Business Facts
+# Business Fact Extraction
 
 ## Purpose
 
@@ -59,12 +59,12 @@ Turn code-backed evidence into reusable business facts.
 - Start from code paths, tests, docs, runtime traces, and schemas.
 - Produce the output in three stages: code facts, business facts, and CodeWiki updates.
 - Keep evidence, inference, and unknowns distinct.
-- Hand off the result when the facts are stable enough for `domain-modeling`, `spec`, or `knowledge-capture`.
+- Hand off the result when the facts are stable enough for `domain-modeling`, `spec-refinement`, or `knowledge-capture`.
 
 ## Write Back
 
 - When the user wants persistence, render the staged output into a JSON fact pack.
-- Use `skills/extract-business-facts/scripts/write-knowledge-base.js` to write the pack into the knowledge-base files.
+- Use `skills/business-fact-extraction/scripts/write-knowledge-base.js` to write the pack into the knowledge-base files.
 - Keep the pack keyed by target file path under `knowledge-base/`.
 - Write only the smallest matching file for each fact.
 - Treat the script as a writer, not as a second analysis pass.
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ Turn code-backed evidence into reusable business facts.
 - decision: inventory must be reserved before order confirmation
 - reason: avoid overselling
 - date or context: 2026-06-22, order flow review
-- affected artifact: checkout spec
+- affected artifact: checkout spec-refinement
 - notes: failure should return a clear stock shortage message
 
 #### `knowledge-base/requirements/acceptance.md`
@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ Turn code-backed evidence into reusable business facts.
 5. Map each section to the exact knowledge-base files it should update.
 6. Mark each fact as evidence-backed, inferred, or unknown.
 7. Summarize gaps, contradictions, and open questions.
-8. Hand off to `domain-modeling`, `spec`, or `knowledge-capture`.
+8. Hand off to `domain-modeling`, `spec-refinement`, or `knowledge-capture`.
 
 ## Replay Signals
 
@@ -334,3 +334,4 @@ Turn code-backed evidence into reusable business facts.
 - `skills/references/skill-reference-matrix.md`
 - `skills/references/rule-loading-map.md`
 - `docs/codewiki-knowledge-base.md`
+

package/skills/{extract-business-facts → business-fact-extraction}/scripts/write-knowledge-base.js

@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ const fs = require('fs');
 const path = require('path');
 
 const REPO_ROOT = path.join(__dirname, '..', '..', '..');
-const START_MARKER = '<!-- extract-business-facts:start -->';
-const END_MARKER = '<!-- extract-business-facts:end -->';
+const START_MARKER = '<!-- business-fact-extraction:start -->';
+const END_MARKER = '<!-- business-fact-extraction:end -->';
 
 const FILE_FIELD_ORDER = {
   'knowledge-base/realtime-code/modules.md': ['module', 'current responsibility', 'key entry points', 'important constraints', 'last verified'],
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ const SAMPLE_PACK = {
         decision: 'inventory must be reserved before order confirmation',
         reason: 'avoid overselling',
         'date or context': '2026-06-22, order flow review',
-        'affected artifact': 'checkout spec',
+        'affected artifact': 'checkout spec-refinement',
         notes: 'failure should return a clear stock shortage message'
       }
     ],
@@ -225,3 +225,4 @@ try {
   console.error(error.message);
   process.exitCode = 1;
 }
+

package/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ workflow:
   - lock the review scope
   - identify the tech stack and load the matching review overlay(s)
   - inspect correctness, maintainability, and regression risk
-  - route security-specific issues to `security-review`
-  - route performance-specific issues to `performance-check`
+  - route security-specific issues to `security-audit`
+  - route performance-specific issues to `performance-audit`
   - rank findings by severity
   - produce an actionable review report
 gates:
@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ Review a change set and return actionable findings.
 - Identify the stack(s) first. This repository may apply Java, Vue, or mixed-stack review overlays.
 - Read the diff with the current rules bundle in mind.
 - Report findings with severity and a concrete fix path.
-- If the issue is clearly about auth, secrets, or exposure, hand off to `security-review`.
-- If the issue is clearly about latency, throughput, or resource usage, hand off to `performance-check`.
+- If the issue is clearly about auth, secrets, or exposure, hand off to `security-audit`.
+- If the issue is clearly about latency, throughput, or resource usage, hand off to `performance-audit`.
 - Keep stack-specific concerns in the matching overlay and keep the core review generic.
 
 ## Report Format
@@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ Review a change set and return actionable findings.
 1. Lock the review scope.
 2. Identify the stack overlays and load the matching review baseline(s) when applicable.
 3. Inspect correctness, maintainability, and regression risk.
-4. Route security-specific issues to `security-review`.
-5. Route performance-specific issues to `performance-check`.
+4. Route security-specific issues to `security-audit`.
+5. Route performance-specific issues to `performance-audit`.
 6. Rank findings by severity.
 7. Produce an actionable review report.
 
@@ -133,3 +133,4 @@ Review a change set and return actionable findings.
 - `rules/review/code.md`
 - `rules/review/java.md`
 - `rules/review/vue.md`
+

package/skills/code-review/references/template-review.md

@@ -1,214 +1,39 @@
-# 代码评审报告模板
-
-> 用于 code-review Skill 输出的标准格式
-
----
-
-## 模板内容
-
-```markdown
-# 代码评审报告
-
-## 评审概要
-
-| 字段 | 内容 |
-|------|------|
-| 评审时间 | {datetime} |
-| 评审文件数 | {count} |
-| 变更行数 | +{add} / -{del} |
-| 评审耗时 | {duration} |
-| 规则覆盖率 | {coverage}% |
-| Rubric 评分 | {score}/10 |
-
----
-
-## 问题列表
-
-### P0 问题（阻断性 - 必须修复）
-
-#### 问题 #1
-
-| 字段 | 内容 |
-|------|------|
-| 文件 | `{filePath}` |
-| 行号 | {lineNumber} |
-| 规则 | {ruleId}: {ruleName} |
-| 类型 | MUST / NEVER |
-| 问题 | {问题描述} |
-| 代码 | `{问题代码片段}` |
-| 修复 | `{修复建议}` |
-| 依据 | [规则定义](references/rules.md#{ruleId}) |
-
----
-
-### P1 问题（严重 - 必须修复）
-
-#### 问题 #2
-
-| 字段 | 内容 |
-|------|------|
-| 文件 | `{filePath}` |
-| 行号 | {lineNumber} |
-| 规则 | {ruleId}: {ruleName} |
-| 类型 | MUST / NEVER |
-| 问题 | {问题描述} |
-| 代码 | `{问题代码片段}` |
-| 修复 | `{修复建议}` |
-| 依据 | [规则定义](references/rules.md#{ruleId}) |
-
----
-
-### P2 问题（最佳实践 - 建议修复）
-
-#### 问题 #3
-
-| 字段 | 内容 |
-|------|------|
-| 文件 | `{filePath}` |
-| 行号 | {lineNumber} |
-| 规则 | {ruleId}: {ruleName} |
-| 问题 | {问题描述} |
-| 修复 | `{修复建议}` |
-
----
-
-### P3 问题（建议改进）
-
-#### 问题 #4
-
-| 字段 | 内容 |
-|------|------|
-| 文件 | `{filePath}` |
-| 规则 | {ruleId}: {ruleName} |
-| 问题 | {问题描述} |
-| 建议 | `{改进建议}` |
-
----
-
-## 跨模块影响分析
-
-### 变更文件
-
-| 文件 | 类型 | 模块 |
-|------|------|------|
-| `{filePath}` | 新增 / 修改 / 删除 | `{module}` |
-
-### 影响模块
-
-| 模块 | 影响类型 | 变更内容 | 建议 |
-|------|----------|----------|------|
-| `{module}` | API变更 / 依赖变更 / 数据变更 | `{content}` | `{suggestion}` |
-
-### 依赖关系图
-
-```
-{moduleA} → {moduleB} → {moduleC}
-    ↓
-{moduleD}
-```
-
----
-
-## 安全检查结果
-
-| 维度 | 结果 | 问题数 | 详情 |
-|------|------|--------|------|
-| 硬编码 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-| 日志 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-| SQL注入 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-| XSS | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-
----
-
-## 性能检查结果
-
-| 维度 | 结果 | 问题数 | 详情 |
-|------|------|--------|------|
-| N+1查询 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-| Left-fuzzy LIKE | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-| 批量操作 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {count} | {details} |
-
----
-
-## Rubric 自检结果
-
-| 规则 | 结果 | 说明 |
-|------|------|------|
-| R1: 渐进式加载 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-| R2: 规则覆盖率 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {coverage}% |
-| R3: 位置准确性 | ✅ / ⚠️ | 偏差 {diff} 行 |
-| R4: 可解释性 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {coverage}% |
-| R5: 问题分级 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-| R6: 跨模块影响 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-| R7: 输出格式 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-| R8: 确认节点 | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-| R9: Pre-Delivery | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-| R10: 反 Slop | ✅ / ⚠️ | {message} |
-
----
-
-## 评审结论
-
-| 结论 | 条件 | 当前状态 |
-|------|------|----------|
-| ✅ 通过 | 0 个 P0/P1 问题 | {status} |
-| ⚠️ 需修改后通过 | 有 P0/P1 问题，修复后重新评审 | {status} |
-| ❌ 不通过 | >5 个 P0 问题 | {status} |
-
----
-
-## 下一步建议
-
-1. {修复建议1}
-2. {修复建议2}
-3. 执行 `mvn compile -q` 验证编译
-4. 执行 `mvn test -q` 验证测试
-5. 重新提交评审
-
----
-
-## 评审人
-
-| 字段 | 内容 |
-|------|------|
-| 评审工具 | pig-skills code-review v{version} |
-| 评审模型 | {model} |
-| Rubric 评分 | {score}/10 |
-
----
-
-*报告生成时间: {timestamp}*
-```
-
----
-
-## 使用说明
-
-### 填充变量
-
-| 变量 | 来源 |
-|------|------|
-| `{datetime}` | 当前时间 |
-| `{count}` | Git diff 文件数 |
-| `{add}` / `{del}` | Git diff 行数统计 |
-| `{duration}` | 评审耗时 |
-| `{coverage}` | lint 脚本计算 |
-| `{score}` | Rubric 自检结果 |
-| `{filePath}` | 变更文件路径 |
-| `{lineNumber}` | lint 脚本定位 |
-| `{ruleId}` | 规则ID（MUST-001 等） |
-| `{ruleName}` | 规则名称 |
-| `{module}` | 模块名称（包路径） |
-
-### 输出位置
-
-```
-.agents/specs/REVIEW-{timestamp}.md
-```
-
-### 命名规则
-
-```
-REVIEW-{YYYYMMDD}-{HHMMSS}.md
-例如: REVIEW-20260616-143000.md
-```
+# 代码审查报告模板
+
+> 代码审查结果的标准输出格式，用于保持结论清晰、可复核、可归档。
+
+---
+
+## 基本信息
+
+| 字段 | 说明 |
+|------|------|
+| 审查时间 | {datetime} |
+| 审查对象 | {repo / branch / pr} |
+| 审查人 | {reviewer} |
+| 审查范围 | {diff / files / modules} |
+
+## 结论摘要
+
+- 总体结论：{pass / pass with comments / fail}
+- 风险等级：{low / medium / high}
+- 是否建议合并：{yes / no}
+
+## 发现项
+
+| 等级 | 文件 | 问题 | 建议 |
+|------|------|------|------|
+| P0 | {file} | {issue} | {fix} |
+| P1 | {file} | {issue} | {fix} |
+| P2 | {file} | {issue} | {fix} |
+
+## 验证信息
+
+- 已运行的检查：{lint / test / manual check}
+- 未覆盖的风险：{gaps}
+- 需要补充的证据：{evidence}
+
+## 备注
+
+- 如果没有发现问题，也要明确说明“未发现阻断项”。
+- 如果有假设，要明确标注假设来源。

package/skills/domain-modeling/SKILL.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ workflow:
   - extract the core domain terms
   - group concepts by boundary
   - identify aggregates and dependencies
-  - hand off to technical-design or spec
+  - hand off to technical-design or spec-refinement
 gates:
   - stop at domain boundaries
   - do not implement code
@@ -51,14 +51,14 @@ Extract domain boundaries and core concepts from messy input.
 1. Extract the core domain terms.
 2. Group concepts by boundary.
 3. Identify aggregates and dependencies.
-4. Hand off to `technical-design` or `spec`.
+4. Hand off to `technical-design` or `spec-refinement`.
 
 ## Replay Signals
 
 - Input signal: existing business language, product context, code, or documents.
 - Output to verify: domain map, core concepts, boundary notes.
 - Stop signal: implementation code or PRD drafting.
-- Handoff signal: the boundary map is ready for `technical-design` or `spec`.
+- Handoff signal: the boundary map is ready for `technical-design` or `spec-refinement`.
 
 ## Examples
 
@@ -78,3 +78,4 @@ Extract domain boundaries and core concepts from messy input.
 - `skills/references/rule-loading-map.md`
 - `skills/references/prompt-replay-checklist.md`
 - `skills/references/full-chain-replay-scenarios.md`
+