autocrew 0.1.0 → 0.3.0

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "autocrew",
-  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "version": "0.3.0",
   "description": "One-person content studio powered by AI — from trending topics to published posts",
   "type": "module",
   "license": "MIT",

package/skills/configure/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+---
+name: configure
+description: |
+  Guided service configuration — detects unconfigured tools, shows feature impact,
+  walks users through setup module by module. Stores configs in services.json.
+  Triggers: "配置" / "configure" / "设置工具" / "config" / "设置" / "setup tools".
+---
+
+# Configure
+
+> Orchestrator skill. Scans current service configuration state, reports gaps with
+> feature impact, guides users through setup one module at a time. Configs stored
+> in `~/.autocrew/services.json`, separate from creator identity (creator-profile.json).
+
+## Step 1: Scan configuration state
+
+Read `~/.autocrew/services.json`. If it doesn't exist, all modules are unconfigured.
+
+For each of the 6 configurable modules, check status:
+
+| Module | Check | Feature | Impact when missing |
+|--------|-------|---------|-------------------|
+| omni | `omni.apiKey` exists | 视频分析 | 视频拆解功能不可用 |
+| coverGen | `coverGen.apiKey` exists | 封面生成 | AI 封面生成不可用 |
+| videoCrawler | `videoCrawler.type` != "manual" | 视频采集器 | 视频链接下载需手动操作 |
+| tts | `tts.apiKey` exists | TTS 语音合成 | 视频配音不可用 |
+| platforms | any platform `configured: true` | 发布平台 | 自动发布不可用 |
+| intelSources | any source configured | 情报源 | RSS/趋势/竞品监控为空 |
+
+## Step 2: Display configuration report
+
+Present to the user:
+
+```
+AutoCrew 服务配置状态
+
+✅ 已配置：
+   {list configured modules, or "暂无" if none}
+
+❌ 未配置：
+   1. {module} — {impact}
+   2. {module} — {impact}
+   ...
+
+推荐先配置：{top 2 most impactful — typically omni and coverGen}
+
+输入数字选择要配置的模块，或者说"全部"一次配完。
+```
+
+## Step 3: User selects a module
+
+User says a number, module name, or "全部".
+
+If "全部" → run each module's guided flow in order (omni → coverGen → videoCrawler → tts → platforms → intelSources). User can skip any module by saying "跳过".
+
+## Step 4: Run the selected module's guided flow
+
+### Module: 视频分析 (omni)
+
+```
+视频分析让你可以用 AI 拆解对标账号的视频 — 分析内容结构、画面语言、传播策略。
+
+支持的 provider：
+1. 小米 MiMo（推荐，性价比高）
+   注册地址：platform.xiaomimimo.com
+   模型：mimo-v2-omni
+   
+2. OpenAI GPT-4o
+   
+3. Google Gemini
+
+4. 自定义（OpenAI 兼容 API）
+
+你用哪个？
+```
+
+User selects → ask for API Key → save to `services.json`:
+```json
+{
+  "omni": {
+    "provider": "xiaomi",
+    "baseUrl": "https://api.xiaomimimo.com/v1",
+    "model": "mimo-v2-omni",
+    "apiKey": "<user input>"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Provider defaults:
+- xiaomi: baseUrl `https://api.xiaomimimo.com/v1`, model `mimo-v2-omni`
+- openai: baseUrl `https://api.openai.com/v1`, model `gpt-4o`
+- google: baseUrl `https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta`, model `gemini-2.0-flash`
+- custom: ask for baseUrl and model
+
+### Module: 封面生成 (coverGen)
+
+```
+封面生成用 AI 自动为你的内容创建封面图。
+
+支持的 provider：
+1. Google Gemini（推荐，支持 Imagen）
+2. OpenAI DALL-E
+3. 自定义
+
+请选择并输入 API Key：
+```
+
+Save to `services.json → coverGen`.
+
+### Module: 视频采集器 (videoCrawler)
+
+```
+视频采集器用于从抖音/小红书等平台自动下载视频进行拆解。
+
+1. MediaCrawl（需要本地安装）
+   请输入执行命令，例如：python3 /path/to/media_crawler/main.py
+
+2. Playwright 浏览器自动化（需要已登录的浏览器会话）
+
+3. 手动下载（不配置采集器，每次自己下载视频）
+
+你选哪个？
+```
+
+If MediaCrawl → ask for command path.
+Save to `services.json → videoCrawler`.
+
+### Module: TTS 语音合成 (tts)
+
+```
+TTS 用于为视频脚本自动生成配音。
+
+1. MiMo TTS（推荐，和视频分析同一个平台）
+2. ElevenLabs
+3. Azure Speech
+4. 自定义
+
+请选择并输入 API Key：
+```
+
+Save to `services.json → tts`.
+
+### Module: 发布平台 (platforms)
+
+```
+发布平台需要通过浏览器登录来获取授权。
+
+你要配置哪个平台？
+1. 小红书
+2. 抖音
+3. 微信公众号
+4. B站
+
+选择后会打开浏览器，你登录一次就行，cookie 会自动保存。
+```
+
+After browser login → mark platform as `configured: true` in `services.json → platforms`.
+
+### Module: 情报源 (intelSources)
+
+```
+情报源为你的内容调研提供数据。有三类可配置：
+
+1. RSS 订阅 — 输入你关注的博客/媒体的 RSS 链接
+2. 趋势热榜 — 选择要监控的平台（微博/知乎/抖音/B站/HN/Reddit）
+3. 竞品账号 — 输入你要关注的对标账号链接
+
+先配哪个？
+```
+
+RSS → write to `~/.autocrew/data/pipeline/intel/_sources/rss.yaml`
+Trends → write to `_sources/trends.yaml`
+Competitors → write to `_sources/accounts.yaml`
+Then update `services.json → intelSources` marking which are configured.
+
+## Step 5: Save and verify
+
+After each module:
+
+1. Save config to `services.json` using `saveServiceConfig()`
+2. Read it back to verify save succeeded
+3. If the module has an API key, attempt a minimal test request:
+   - omni/tts: send a simple text completion ("hi") to verify the key works
+   - coverGen: send a minimal image generation test
+   - If test fails: show error, let user re-enter key or skip
+   - If test succeeds: confirm with ✅
+
+4. Report:
+   ```
+   ✅ {module} 配置完成。
+   
+   还有 {N} 个模块未配置。要继续吗？
+   1. 继续配置下一个
+   2. 先到这里，后面需要了再说
+   ```
+
+## Step 6: Completion
+
+When user is done or all modules configured:
+
+```
+配置完成。当前状态：
+
+✅ 已配置：{list}
+❌ 未配置：{list, or "无"}
+
+随时可以说"配置"重新进入这个流程。
+```
+
+## Storage Rules
+
+- **NEVER store API keys in creator-profile.json.** All service configs go to services.json.
+- **NEVER store API keys in MEMORY.md or any memory file.** services.json is the only location.
+- After saving, ALWAYS read back services.json to confirm the save succeeded.
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Situation | Action |
+|-----------|--------|
+| services.json doesn't exist | Create it with empty config on first save |
+| API key validation fails | Show error message, let user retry or skip |
+| User wants to skip a module | Mark as skipped, continue to next |
+| User says "全部" | Run all modules in order, allow skipping each |
+| User reconfigures an existing module | Overwrite the old config, keep other modules |
+
+## Changelog
+
+- 2026-04-07: v1 — Initial version. 6 configurable modules with guided setup.

package/skills/content-review/SKILL.md

@@ -114,7 +114,53 @@ action: "review_scan"  (如果已实现)
 
 **总分 = 4 项之和（0-100）**
 
-### Step 4.5: 标题公式检查
+### Step 4.5: 七问自检（文案终极检验）
+
+对内容逐一回答以下 7 个问题。每个问题必须给出具体答案，答不上来就是该项不合格。
+
+**Q1: 用户思维** — 这条内容为用户提供了什么？
+- 提供了解决方法？引发了共鸣？提供了谈资？带来了快乐？
+- 还是纯粹自嗨？（例：做餐饮加盟的教人怎么拌饭好吃 = 自嗨）
+- 必须明确回答内容给用户的具体价值
+
+**Q2: 动词名词替换形容词** — 内容里是否滥用形容词？
+- 形容词是作者的主观感受，要让观众自己得出结论
+- 反面："我工作很累" → 正面："从早 7 点干到晚 11 点，一周 7 天没休息，上厕所时间都快没了"
+- 检查所有形容词，能换成具体动词/名词/数据的必须换
+
+**Q3: 可信度支撑** — 用户凭什么相信你说的话？
+- 每个核心论点是否有以下至少一种支撑：权威认证、数据佐证、亲身经历
+- 反面："多动的孩子往往体育天赋惊人"后面没有任何事实佐证 → 直接滑走
+- 没有支撑的断言必须补充或删除
+
+**Q4: 每句话的目的** — 每一句话在文章中的作用是什么？
+- 推进叙事发展？拉近共鸣？制造期待？
+- 如果一句话找不到明确目的 → 删掉或改写
+- 不允许存在无功能的废句
+
+**Q5: 关键印象与人设** — 用户看完后印象最深的一个点是什么？最大感受是什么？
+- 这个印象直接决定你的人设是否跑偏
+- 如果答不上来，说明内容缺乏记忆点
+- 必须能用一句话说出"用户看完会记住___"
+
+**Q6: 金句转发** — 如果观众想转发一句话，会是哪句？
+- 这句话在网上能搜到吗？（搜得到 = 不够原创）
+- 如果整篇没有一句值得转发的话 → 缺少金句，需要补
+- 金句是内容传播的核心驱动力
+
+**Q7: 说人话** — 文案是否自然、不端着、不做作？
+- 是否堆砌成语？是否播音腔？是否书面语过重？
+- 一句话用 3 个成语 = 不合格
+- 标准：读出来像正常人说话，不别扭
+
+**评分规则：**
+- 7/7 全部能回答 → ✅ 文案过关
+- 5-6/7 能回答 → ⚠️ 需要针对性修改（标注具体不合格项）
+- ≤4/7 能回答 → ❌ 文案需要大改
+
+---
+
+### Step 4.6: 标题公式检查（原 4.5）
 
 检查标题是否命中至少一个标题公式：
 
@@ -204,19 +250,23 @@ AI 味评分：{score}/100
 - CTA 清晰度：{n}/25
 - 可读性：{n}/25
 
-### 5. 标题公式 {✅/⚠️}
+### 5. 七问自检 {✅/⚠️/❌}
+通过：{n}/7
+{逐条列出每个问题的回答或不合格原因}
+
+### 6. 标题公式 {✅/⚠️}
 {详细结果}
 
-### 6. 评论触发点 {✅/⚠️}
+### 7. 评论触发点 {✅/⚠️}
 {详细结果}
 
-### 7. 完播率微操 {✅/⚠️/❌}
+### 8. 完播率微操 {✅/⚠️/❌}
 {详细结果}
 
-### 8. 流量假设 {✅/⚠️}
+### 9. 流量假设 {✅/⚠️}
 {详细结果}
 
-### 9. 内容支柱对齐 {✅/⚠️/❌/跳过}
+### 10. 内容支柱对齐 {✅/⚠️/❌/跳过}
 {详细结果}
 
 ### 📌 审核结论

package/skills/feature-triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,335 @@
+---
+name: feature-triage
+description: |
+  Evaluate whether a proposed feature belongs in AutoCrew and in what form.
+  Activate when user explicitly proposes adding a new feature, capability,
+  or integration. Triggers: "我想加" / "能不能做一个" / "想增加" /
+  "加个功能" / "接入一个" / "想做一个" / "I want to add".
+---
+
+# Feature Triage
+
+> Orchestrator skill. Leads a structured decision dialogue to evaluate feature proposals
+> against AutoCrew's architecture, roadmap, and creator needs. Outputs a decision report.
+> Does NOT implement — terminates at a decision.
+
+## Persona
+
+You are AutoCrew's co-founder and product architect. You deeply understand:
+- AutoCrew's 18 tools, 5-stage pipeline (intel → topics → drafting → production → published), and skill system
+- Real workflows of Chinese social media content creators (Xiaohongshu, Douyin, WeChat, Bilibili)
+- The difference between indie creators and team creators: different needs, different constraints
+- The codebase: `src/tools/`, `src/storage/`, `src/modules/`, `skills/`, pipeline-store semantics
+
+Your decision biases (make these explicit when they influence your reasoning):
+- Prefer composing existing pipeline components over adding new modules
+- Fill current-level gaps before building higher-level features
+- A feature not built is better than a feature built badly
+- Every new module is a maintenance commitment — weigh ongoing cost, not just build cost
+
+## Inputs
+
+| Parameter | Source | Required | Description |
+|-----------|--------|----------|-------------|
+| feature_idea | User message | Yes | The proposed feature, in any level of detail |
+
+## Pre-Flight: Complexity Assessment
+
+Before engaging in discussion, silently evaluate complexity based on these signals:
+
+```
+□ Introduces a new external dependency or third-party API?
+□ Changes existing data flow or pipeline stage semantics?
+□ Affects 3+ existing skills or tools?
+□ Estimated implementation exceeds 500 lines of new code?
+```
+
+| Yes count | Complexity | Rounds | Framework handling |
+|-----------|------------|--------|--------------------|
+| 0-1       | 轻量       | 2-3    | Merge Phase 2+3 into one round |
+| 2         | 中等       | 3-4    | Per-framework, standard depth |
+| 3-4       | 重度       | 4-6    | Fully expanded, each framework gets its own round |
+
+Display to user at the start:
+> 复杂度评估：{轻量/中等/重度}，预计 {N} 轮讨论。
+
+## Discussion Flow
+
+### Phase 1 — 🔍 苏格拉底提问（理解本质）
+
+**Goal:** Through targeted questioning, strip away the surface request and uncover the
+fundamental problem the user is trying to solve.
+
+**Technique — Socratic Elicitation:**
+
+Do not accept the feature description at face value. The user describes a SOLUTION;
+your job is to excavate the PROBLEM. Ask questions that peel layers:
+
+<prompt-template>
+You are investigating the real need behind a feature proposal. Apply Socratic questioning:
+
+Layer 1 — Current state: "你现在没有这个功能时，怎么完成这件事的？"
+Layer 2 — Pain frequency: "这个问题多久遇到一次？上一次具体是什么场景？"
+Layer 3 — Alternative paths: "如果 AutoCrew 永远不加这个功能，你的 plan B 是什么？"
+Layer 4 — Essence: "如果把这个想法压缩成一句话的需求，是什么？"
+
+Rules:
+- ONE question per message. Wait for the answer before asking the next.
+- Prefer concrete questions over abstract ones. "上次你做这个花了多久" > "你觉得这个重要吗"
+- When the user's answer reveals a deeper need than the original proposal, name it:
+  "听起来你真正需要的不是 X，而是 Y。对吗？"
+- This phase ends when you can state the root problem in one sentence and the user confirms.
+</prompt-template>
+
+**Deliverable:** One-sentence root problem statement, confirmed by user.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 2 — 🧱 第一性原理（拆解需求真伪）
+
+**Goal:** Decompose the idea into irreducible capability units. For each unit, determine
+whether it's a genuine gap or already covered by AutoCrew's existing architecture.
+
+**Technique — First-Principles Decomposition:**
+
+<prompt-template>
+Take the confirmed root problem from Phase 1 and decompose into capability units.
+
+For EACH unit, evaluate using this chain-of-thought structure:
+
+前提：{what you know about AutoCrew's current capabilities relevant to this unit}
+推导：{logical chain from premise to conclusion — if any step relies on an assumption
+       rather than verified fact, tag it as [假设]}
+结论：{this unit is: ✅ genuine gap / ⚠️ partially covered / ❌ already solved}
+
+Then check for "borrowing bias":
+- Did this idea originate from seeing someone else's product (e.g., "Karpathy has a knowledge
+  base, so we should too")?
+- If yes: what is DIFFERENT about AutoCrew's context that makes this relevant here, specifically?
+- If nothing is different: flag it as borrowing bias.
+
+Present to user:
+- List of capability units with verdicts
+- Any borrowing bias detected
+- Which units (if any) represent genuine gaps worth filling
+</prompt-template>
+
+**Deliverable:** Capability unit table with genuine-gap / already-covered verdicts.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 3 — 🪒 奥卡姆剃刀（砍复杂度）
+
+**Goal:** If genuine gaps exist from Phase 2, find the simplest possible form to fill them.
+
+**Technique — Minimal Viable Form:**
+
+<prompt-template>
+For each genuine-gap capability unit from Phase 2, answer these questions in order:
+
+1. Can this be solved by COMBINING existing tools/skills with no new code?
+   → If yes: describe the composition. Stop here for this unit.
+
+2. Can this be solved by EXTENDING an existing tool/skill (adding an action, a step)?
+   → If yes: name the tool/skill and the extension. Stop here.
+
+3. Does this require a NEW skill (orchestration logic only, no new tool)?
+   → If yes: describe the skill's steps using existing tools.
+
+4. Does this require a NEW tool (new data storage, new API integration)?
+   → If yes: this is the most expensive option. Justify why 1-3 don't work.
+
+For each unit, also apply the YAGNI check:
+- "如果砍掉这个单元，剩下的部分还能独立产生价值吗？"
+- If yes → this unit is a candidate for deferral.
+
+Present to user:
+- Recommended form per unit (compose / extend / new skill / new tool)
+- What was cut and why
+- The minimum viable scope
+</prompt-template>
+
+**Deliverable:** Minimum viable form recommendation per capability unit.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 4 — 📊 马斯洛需求分析（定位价值层级）
+
+**Goal:** Position this feature in the creator's need hierarchy. Determine if it fills
+a current-level gap or skips levels.
+
+**Technique — Creator Maslow Mapping:**
+
+<prompt-template>
+Map the proposed feature (in its trimmed Phase 3 form) to the creator need hierarchy:
+
+| Level | Need | AutoCrew coverage | Examples |
+|-------|------|-------------------|----------|
+| 1. 生存 | Can publish, avoid violations | autocrew_review, sensitive-word check | 敏感词检测、基础发布 |
+| 2. 效率 | Faster output, less repetition | spawn-writer, pipeline, humanize | 自动去AI味、批量改写 |
+| 3. 质量 | Better content, competitive edge | research, references, teardowns | 信息源调研、竞品拆解 |
+| 4. 增长 | Followers, monetization, moats | hypothesis testing, performance data | 流量假说、数据驱动优化 |
+| 5. 自我实现 | Unique methodology, industry leadership | content pillars, style calibration | 个人方法论、风格体系 |
+
+Evaluate:
+1. Which level does this feature serve?
+2. Which is the LOWEST level where AutoCrew still has meaningful gaps?
+3. Does this feature fill a gap at that level, or does it skip to a higher level?
+
+If the feature skips levels (e.g., building Level 4 when Level 2 has holes):
+- Flag it explicitly: "这个功能在第 {N} 层，但第 {M} 层还有明显缺口：{gap}。建议先补 {M} 层。"
+- This is not a veto — the user decides. But make the trade-off visible.
+
+Priority recommendation:
+- 填补当前层缺口 → 立即做
+- 填补下一层 (当前层已完善) → 下个里程碑
+- 跳级或锦上添花 → 放入 backlog
+</prompt-template>
+
+**Deliverable:** Value-level positioning and priority recommendation.
+
+---
+
+## Red Team Self-Check
+
+**Before writing the final conclusion, you MUST run this check:**
+
+<prompt-template>
+Switch to red team perspective:
+
+If your conclusion is "做":
+1. List 3 strongest reasons NOT to build this.
+2. For each, attempt a rebuttal.
+3. If any rebuttal is weak (you wouldn't bet money on it), revise your conclusion.
+
+If your conclusion is "不做":
+1. List 3 strongest reasons TO build this.
+2. For each, attempt a rebuttal.
+3. If any rebuttal is weak, revise your conclusion.
+
+If your conclusion is "改形式再做":
+1. List 2 reasons the original form was actually better.
+2. List 2 reasons to just not build it at all.
+3. Attempt rebuttals for all 4.
+
+Display the red team exchange to the user. Transparency builds trust.
+</prompt-template>
+
+## Few-Shot Decision Examples
+
+Use these as calibration anchors for discussion depth and output quality.
+
+### Example A — "做" (Omni 视频拆解)
+
+> **提案：** 用户发送对标账号视频，Omni 自动分析优缺点、可借鉴点，形成索引，后续持续关注。
+>
+> **🔍 苏格拉底：** 根本问题不是"分析视频"，而是"创作者缺少结构化的学习输入"。
+> 看了 100 个对标视频，脑子里一锅粥，写的时候还是凭感觉。
+>
+> **🧱 第一性原理：**
+> - 视频内容提取 → 需要多模态能力 [genuine gap]
+> - 结构化拆解模板 → 可复用 teardown 框架 [partially covered]
+> - 索引 + 持续关注 → intel 模块可扩展 [partially covered]
+> - 供 reference 引用 → references/ 工作流已有 [covered]
+>
+> **🪒 奥卡姆：** 不需要新 tool。扩展 `autocrew_intel` 加 `source: "video_teardown"`，
+> 新建一个 skill 编排"输入视频 → 多模态分析 → 写入 intel + references"流程。
+>
+> **📊 马斯洛：** 质量层（Level 3），当前恰好在补这层缺口（刚加了 references 调研流程）。
+> 契合度高。
+>
+> **结论：做。** 以 skill + intel 扩展形式，不新建 tool。
+
+### Example B — "不做" (AI 自动生成封面)
+
+> **提案：** AutoCrew 内置 AI 画图能力，自动生成封面。
+>
+> **🔍 苏格拉底：** 根本问题是"封面制作耗时"，但追问后发现用户已经用 Canva/MidJourney，
+> 痛点其实是"封面和内容不匹配"而不是"没有画图工具"。
+>
+> **🧱 第一性原理：**
+> - 画图能力 → 已有大量成熟外部工具 [covered externally]
+> - 封面与内容匹配度检查 → `autocrew_cover_review` 已存在 [covered]
+> - 封面候选生成 → cover-generator skill 已存在 [covered]
+>
+> **🪒 奥卡姆：** 所有能力单元已覆盖或有外部替代。内置画图引擎是巨大维护负担。
+>
+> **📊 马斯洛：** 效率层（Level 2），但该层已有充分覆盖。
+>
+> **结论：不做。** 封面审核 + 候选管理已有，画图本身交给专业工具。
+
+## Decision Report Template
+
+After completing all phases + red team check, generate and save the report:
+
+**File path:** `docs/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-{feature-slug}.md`
+
+```markdown
+# 功能决策：{feature name}
+
+## 结论
+{做 / 不做 / 改形式再做}
+{一句话理由}
+
+## 提案原始描述
+{用户原话或整理后的描述}
+
+## 分析过程
+
+### 🔍 苏格拉底提问 — 本质问题
+- 根本问题：{一句话}
+- 关键追问与回答：{2-3 条核心 Q&A 摘要}
+
+### 🧱 第一性原理 — 需求拆解
+| 能力单元 | 判定 | 理由 |
+|----------|------|------|
+| {unit} | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {reason} |
+
+- 借鉴偏差检测：{有/无，说明}
+
+### 🪒 奥卡姆剃刀 — 最简形式
+- 推荐形式：{compose / extend / new skill / new tool / 不做}
+- 砍掉的部分：{列表 + 理由}
+- 最小可行范围：{具体描述}
+
+### 📊 马斯洛需求分析 — 价值定位
+- 需求层级：{Level N — 名称}
+- 当前缺口匹配度：{填补当前缺口 / 跳级 / 锦上添花}
+- 优先级建议：{立即做 / 下个里程碑 / 放入 backlog}
+
+### 🔴 红队自检
+{展示红队正反论点和反驳过程}
+
+## 实现建议（仅当结论为"做"时）
+- 形式：{skill / tool action / module}
+- 依赖的现有组件：{列表}
+- 主要风险：{列表}
+- 建议下一步：{具体 action}
+
+## 元数据
+- 日期：{YYYY-MM-DD}
+- 提案人：user
+- 复杂度评估：{轻量/中等/重度}
+```
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Situation | Action |
+|-----------|--------|
+| User gives vague one-liner ("加个知识库") | Start Phase 1 with broad Socratic question to ground the idea |
+| User wants to skip discussion ("直接做就行") | Acknowledge urgency, compress to 2 rounds but still run Phase 2 + red team |
+| User disagrees with "不做" conclusion | Respect user's final call. Log dissent in report: "用户决定override，理由：{reason}" |
+| Feature overlaps with in-progress work | Flag overlap, suggest checking `docs/decisions/` for prior decisions on similar topics |
+| Conclusion is "改形式再做" | Clearly describe the alternative form and what changes from the original proposal |
+
+## What This Skill Does NOT Do
+
+- Does NOT implement anything — no code, no scaffolding, no file creation beyond the decision report
+- Does NOT chain into brainstorming, writing-plans, or any implementation skill
+- Does NOT make the final decision — the user always has override authority
+- Does NOT evaluate bugs, refactors, or small adjustments to existing features
+
+## Changelog
+
+- 2026-04-06: v1 — Initial design. Four-framework decision dialogue with adaptive complexity,
+  red team self-check, few-shot examples, structured decision reports.