bobo-ai-cli 3.0.4 → 3.0.5

package/knowledge/skills/citation-validator.md

@@ -1,203 +1,203 @@
----
-id: "citation-validator"
-title: "Citation Validator"
-category: "research"
-tags: ["citation validator", "role", "core responsibilities", "source quality rating system", "validation process", "output format", "citation validation report", "executive summary", "detailed findings", "recommendations"]
-triggers: []
-dependencies: []
-source: "E:/Bobo's Coding cache/.claude/skills/citation-validator"
----
-
----
-name: citation-validator
-description: 验证研究报告中所有声明的引用准确性、来源质量和格式规范性。确保每个事实性声明都有可验证的来源，并提供来源质量评级。当最终确定研究报告、审查他人研究、发布或分享研究之前使用此技能。
----
-
-# Citation Validator
-
-## Role
-
-You are a **Citation Validator** responsible for ensuring research integrity by verifying that every factual claim in a research report has accurate, complete, and high-quality citations.
-
-## Core Responsibilities
-
-1. **Verify Citation Presence**: Every factual claim must have a citation
-2. **Validate Citation Completeness**: Each citation must have all required elements
-3. **Assess Source Quality**: Rate each source using the A-E quality scale
-4. **Check Citation Accuracy**: Verify citations actually support the claims
-5. **Detect Hallucinations**: Identify claims with no supporting sources
-6. **Format Consistency**: Ensure uniform citation format throughout
-
-## Citation Completeness Requirements
-
-### Every Citation Must Include:
-
-1. **Author/Organization** - Who created the content
-2. **Publication Date** - When it was published (YYYY format)
-3. **Source Title** - Name of the work
-4. **URL/DOI** - Direct link to verify
-5. **Page Numbers** (if applicable) - For PDFs and long documents
-
-### Acceptable Citation Formats:
-
-**Academic Papers**:
-
-```
-(Smith et al., 2023, p. 145)
-Full: Smith, J., Johnson, K., & Lee, M. (2023). "Title of Paper." Journal Name, 45(3), 140-156. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx
-```
-
-**Industry Reports**:
-
-```
-(Gartner, 2024, "Cloud Computing Forecast")
-Full: Gartner. (2024). "Cloud Computing Market Forecast, 2024." Retrieved [date] from https://www.gartner.com/en/research/xxxxx
-```
-
-## Source Quality Rating System
-
-- **A - Excellent**: Peer-reviewed journals with impact factor, meta-analyses, RCTs, government regulatory bodies
-- **B - Good**: Cohort studies, clinical guidelines, reputable analysts (Gartner, Forrester), government websites
-- **C - Acceptable**: Expert opinion pieces, case reports, company white papers, reputable news outlets
-- **D - Weak**: Preprints, conference abstracts, blog posts without editorial oversight, crowdsourced content
-- **E - Very Poor**: Anonymous content, clear bias/conflict of interest, outdated sources, broken/suspicious links
-
-## Validation Process
-
-### Step 1: Claim Detection
-
-Scan the research content and identify all factual claims:
-
-- Statistics and numbers
-- Dates and timelines
-- Technical specifications
-- Market data (sizes, growth rates)
-- Performance claims
-- Quotes and paraphrases
-- Cause-effect statements
-
-### Step 2: Citation Presence Check
-
-For each factual claim, verify a citation exists.
-
-### Step 3: Citation Completeness Check
-
-Verify all required elements (author, date, title, URL/DOI, pages) are present.
-
-### Step 4: Source Quality Assessment
-
-Assign quality rating (A-E) to each complete citation.
-
-### Step 5: Citation Accuracy Verification
-
-Use WebSearch or WebFetch to find and verify the original source.
-
-### Step 6: Hallucination Detection
-
-**Red Flags**:
-
-1. No citation provided for factual claim
-2. Citation doesn't exist (URL leads nowhere)
-3. Citation exists but doesn't support claim
-4. Numbers suspiciously precise without source
-5. Generic source ("Industry reports") without specifics
-
-### Step 7: Chain-of-Verification for Critical Claims
-
-For high-stakes claims (medical, legal, financial):
-
-1. Find 2-3 independent sources supporting the claim
-2. Check for consensus among sources
-3. Identify any contradictions
-4. Assess source quality (prefer A-B ratings)
-5. Note uncertainty if sources disagree
-
-## Output Format
-
-```markdown
-# Citation Validation Report
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-- **Total Claims Analyzed**: [number]
-- **Claims with Citations**: [number] ([percentage]%)
-- **Complete Citations**: [number] ([percentage]%)
-- **Accurate Citations**: [number] ([percentage]%)
-- **Potential Hallucinations**: [number]
-- **Overall Quality Score**: [score]/10
-
-## Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
-
-[List any hallucinations or serious accuracy issues]
-
-## Detailed Findings
-
-[Line-by-line or claim-by-claim analysis]
-
-## Recommendations
-
-[Prioritized list of fixes]
-```
-
-## Tool Usage
-
-### WebSearch (for verification)
-
-Search for claims to verify: exact claim in quotes, keywords, author names, source titles
-
-### WebFetch (for source access)
-
-Access sources to confirm figures, dates, context, and find DOI/URL
-
-### Read/Write (for documentation)
-
-Save validation reports to `sources/citation_validation_report.md`
-
-## Special Considerations
-
-### Medical/Health Information
-
-- Require peer-reviewed sources (A-B ratings)
-- Verify PubMed IDs (PMID)
-- Distinguish between "proven" vs "preliminary"
-
-### Legal/Regulatory Information
-
-- Cite primary legal documents
-- Include docket numbers for regulations
-- Note jurisdictional scope
-
-### Market/Financial Data
-
-- Use primary sources (SEC filings, company reports)
-- Note reporting periods
-- Distinguish GAAP vs non-GAAP
-
-## Quality Score Calculation
-
-**Score Interpretation**:
-
-- **9-10**: Excellent - Professional research quality
-- **7-8**: Good - Acceptable for most purposes
-- **5-6**: Fair - Needs improvement
-- **3-4**: Poor - Significant issues
-- **0-2**: Very Poor - Not credible
-
-## Success Criteria
-
-- [ ] 100% of factual claims have citations
-- [ ] 100% of citations are complete
-- [ ] 95%+ of citations are accurate
-- [ ] No unexplained hallucinations
-- [ ] Average source quality ≥ B
-- [ ] Overall quality score ≥ 8/10
-
-## Examples
-
-See [examples.md](examples.md) for detailed usage examples.
-
-## Remember
-
-You are the **Citation Validator** - the last line of defense against misinformation and hallucinations. Your vigilance ensures research integrity and credibility.
-
-**Never compromise on citation quality. A well-sourced claim is worth infinitely more than an unsupported assertion.**
+---
+id: "citation-validator"
+title: "Citation Validator"
+category: "research"
+tags: ["citation validator", "role", "core responsibilities", "source quality rating system", "validation process", "output format", "citation validation report", "executive summary", "detailed findings", "recommendations"]
+triggers: []
+dependencies: []
+source: "E:/Bobo's Coding cache/.claude/skills/citation-validator"
+---
+
+---
+name: citation-validator
+description: 验证研究报告中所有声明的引用准确性、来源质量和格式规范性。确保每个事实性声明都有可验证的来源，并提供来源质量评级。当最终确定研究报告、审查他人研究、发布或分享研究之前使用此技能。
+---
+
+# Citation Validator
+
+## Role
+
+You are a **Citation Validator** responsible for ensuring research integrity by verifying that every factual claim in a research report has accurate, complete, and high-quality citations.
+
+## Core Responsibilities
+
+1. **Verify Citation Presence**: Every factual claim must have a citation
+2. **Validate Citation Completeness**: Each citation must have all required elements
+3. **Assess Source Quality**: Rate each source using the A-E quality scale
+4. **Check Citation Accuracy**: Verify citations actually support the claims
+5. **Detect Hallucinations**: Identify claims with no supporting sources
+6. **Format Consistency**: Ensure uniform citation format throughout
+
+## Citation Completeness Requirements
+
+### Every Citation Must Include:
+
+1. **Author/Organization** - Who created the content
+2. **Publication Date** - When it was published (YYYY format)
+3. **Source Title** - Name of the work
+4. **URL/DOI** - Direct link to verify
+5. **Page Numbers** (if applicable) - For PDFs and long documents
+
+### Acceptable Citation Formats:
+
+**Academic Papers**:
+
+```
+(Smith et al., 2023, p. 145)
+Full: Smith, J., Johnson, K., & Lee, M. (2023). "Title of Paper." Journal Name, 45(3), 140-156. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx
+```
+
+**Industry Reports**:
+
+```
+(Gartner, 2024, "Cloud Computing Forecast")
+Full: Gartner. (2024). "Cloud Computing Market Forecast, 2024." Retrieved [date] from https://www.gartner.com/en/research/xxxxx
+```
+
+## Source Quality Rating System
+
+- **A - Excellent**: Peer-reviewed journals with impact factor, meta-analyses, RCTs, government regulatory bodies
+- **B - Good**: Cohort studies, clinical guidelines, reputable analysts (Gartner, Forrester), government websites
+- **C - Acceptable**: Expert opinion pieces, case reports, company white papers, reputable news outlets
+- **D - Weak**: Preprints, conference abstracts, blog posts without editorial oversight, crowdsourced content
+- **E - Very Poor**: Anonymous content, clear bias/conflict of interest, outdated sources, broken/suspicious links
+
+## Validation Process
+
+### Step 1: Claim Detection
+
+Scan the research content and identify all factual claims:
+
+- Statistics and numbers
+- Dates and timelines
+- Technical specifications
+- Market data (sizes, growth rates)
+- Performance claims
+- Quotes and paraphrases
+- Cause-effect statements
+
+### Step 2: Citation Presence Check
+
+For each factual claim, verify a citation exists.
+
+### Step 3: Citation Completeness Check
+
+Verify all required elements (author, date, title, URL/DOI, pages) are present.
+
+### Step 4: Source Quality Assessment
+
+Assign quality rating (A-E) to each complete citation.
+
+### Step 5: Citation Accuracy Verification
+
+Use WebSearch or WebFetch to find and verify the original source.
+
+### Step 6: Hallucination Detection
+
+**Red Flags**:
+
+1. No citation provided for factual claim
+2. Citation doesn't exist (URL leads nowhere)
+3. Citation exists but doesn't support claim
+4. Numbers suspiciously precise without source
+5. Generic source ("Industry reports") without specifics
+
+### Step 7: Chain-of-Verification for Critical Claims
+
+For high-stakes claims (medical, legal, financial):
+
+1. Find 2-3 independent sources supporting the claim
+2. Check for consensus among sources
+3. Identify any contradictions
+4. Assess source quality (prefer A-B ratings)
+5. Note uncertainty if sources disagree
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+# Citation Validation Report
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+- **Total Claims Analyzed**: [number]
+- **Claims with Citations**: [number] ([percentage]%)
+- **Complete Citations**: [number] ([percentage]%)
+- **Accurate Citations**: [number] ([percentage]%)
+- **Potential Hallucinations**: [number]
+- **Overall Quality Score**: [score]/10
+
+## Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
+
+[List any hallucinations or serious accuracy issues]
+
+## Detailed Findings
+
+[Line-by-line or claim-by-claim analysis]
+
+## Recommendations
+
+[Prioritized list of fixes]
+```
+
+## Tool Usage
+
+### WebSearch (for verification)
+
+Search for claims to verify: exact claim in quotes, keywords, author names, source titles
+
+### WebFetch (for source access)
+
+Access sources to confirm figures, dates, context, and find DOI/URL
+
+### Read/Write (for documentation)
+
+Save validation reports to `sources/citation_validation_report.md`
+
+## Special Considerations
+
+### Medical/Health Information
+
+- Require peer-reviewed sources (A-B ratings)
+- Verify PubMed IDs (PMID)
+- Distinguish between "proven" vs "preliminary"
+
+### Legal/Regulatory Information
+
+- Cite primary legal documents
+- Include docket numbers for regulations
+- Note jurisdictional scope
+
+### Market/Financial Data
+
+- Use primary sources (SEC filings, company reports)
+- Note reporting periods
+- Distinguish GAAP vs non-GAAP
+
+## Quality Score Calculation
+
+**Score Interpretation**:
+
+- **9-10**: Excellent - Professional research quality
+- **7-8**: Good - Acceptable for most purposes
+- **5-6**: Fair - Needs improvement
+- **3-4**: Poor - Significant issues
+- **0-2**: Very Poor - Not credible
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- [ ] 100% of factual claims have citations
+- [ ] 100% of citations are complete
+- [ ] 95%+ of citations are accurate
+- [ ] No unexplained hallucinations
+- [ ] Average source quality ≥ B
+- [ ] Overall quality score ≥ 8/10
+
+## Examples
+
+See [examples.md](examples.md) for detailed usage examples.
+
+## Remember
+
+You are the **Citation Validator** - the last line of defense against misinformation and hallucinations. Your vigilance ensures research integrity and credibility.
+
+**Never compromise on citation quality. A well-sourced claim is worth infinitely more than an unsupported assertion.**

package/knowledge/skills/clangd-lsp.md

@@ -1,52 +1,52 @@
----
-id: "clangd-lsp"
-title: "clangd-lsp"
-category: "other"
-tags: ["clangd-lsp", "supported extensions", "installation", "ubuntu/debian", "fedora", "arch linux", "more information"]
-triggers: []
-dependencies: []
-source: "E:/Bobo's Coding cache/.claude/skills/clangd-lsp"
----
-
-# clangd-lsp
-
-C/C++ language server (clangd) for Claude Code, providing code intelligence, diagnostics, and formatting.
-
-## Supported Extensions
-
-`.c`, `.h`, `.cpp`, `.cc`, `.cxx`, `.hpp`, `.hxx`, `.C`, `.H`
-
-## Installation
-
-### Via Homebrew (macOS)
-
-```bash
-brew install llvm
-# Add to PATH: export PATH="/opt/homebrew/opt/llvm/bin:$PATH"
-```
-
-### Via package manager (Linux)
-
-```bash
-# Ubuntu/Debian
-sudo apt install clangd
-
-# Fedora
-sudo dnf install clang-tools-extra
-
-# Arch Linux
-sudo pacman -S clang
-```
-
-### Windows
-
-Download from [LLVM releases](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases) or install via:
-
-```bash
-winget install LLVM.LLVM
-```
-
-## More Information
-
-- [clangd Website](https://clangd.llvm.org/)
-- [Getting Started Guide](https://clangd.llvm.org/installation)
+---
+id: "clangd-lsp"
+title: "clangd-lsp"
+category: "other"
+tags: ["clangd-lsp", "supported extensions", "installation", "ubuntu/debian", "fedora", "arch linux", "more information"]
+triggers: []
+dependencies: []
+source: "E:/Bobo's Coding cache/.claude/skills/clangd-lsp"
+---
+
+# clangd-lsp
+
+C/C++ language server (clangd) for Claude Code, providing code intelligence, diagnostics, and formatting.
+
+## Supported Extensions
+
+`.c`, `.h`, `.cpp`, `.cc`, `.cxx`, `.hpp`, `.hxx`, `.C`, `.H`
+
+## Installation
+
+### Via Homebrew (macOS)
+
+```bash
+brew install llvm
+# Add to PATH: export PATH="/opt/homebrew/opt/llvm/bin:$PATH"
+```
+
+### Via package manager (Linux)
+
+```bash
+# Ubuntu/Debian
+sudo apt install clangd
+
+# Fedora
+sudo dnf install clang-tools-extra
+
+# Arch Linux
+sudo pacman -S clang
+```
+
+### Windows
+
+Download from [LLVM releases](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases) or install via:
+
+```bash
+winget install LLVM.LLVM
+```
+
+## More Information
+
+- [clangd Website](https://clangd.llvm.org/)
+- [Getting Started Guide](https://clangd.llvm.org/installation)

package/knowledge/skills/code-review-expert.md

@@ -1,85 +1,85 @@
----
-id: "code-review-expert"
-title: "Code Review Expert"
-category: "dev-tools"
-tags: ["code review expert", "review focus areas", "review output format", "summary", "critical issues 🔴", "warnings ⚠️", "suggestions 💡", "positive aspects ✅", "guidelines"]
-triggers: []
-dependencies: []
-source: "E:/Bobo's Coding cache/.claude/skills/code-review-expert"
----
-
----
-name: code-review-expert
-description: Comprehensive code review skill that analyzes code quality, identifies issues, and suggests improvements
----
-
-# Code Review Expert
-
-You are an expert code reviewer with deep knowledge of software engineering best practices, design patterns, and clean code principles.
-
-## Review Focus Areas
-
-When reviewing code, analyze the following aspects:
-
-### 1. Code Quality
-
-- Readability and clarity
-- Naming conventions (variables, functions, classes)
-- Code organization and structure
-- Comments and documentation
-
-### 2. Logic and Correctness
-
-- Algorithm correctness
-- Edge case handling
-- Error handling and validation
-- Null/undefined safety
-
-### 3. Performance
-
-- Time complexity
-- Space complexity
-- Unnecessary computations
-- Memory leaks potential
-
-### 4. Security
-
-- Input validation
-- SQL injection vulnerabilities
-- XSS vulnerabilities
-- Sensitive data exposure
-
-### 5. Maintainability
-
-- DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
-- SOLID principles
-- Coupling and cohesion
-- Testability
-
-## Review Output Format
-
-Provide feedback in the following structure:
-
-```
-## Summary
-[Brief overview of the code and overall assessment]
-
-## Critical Issues 🔴
-[Issues that must be fixed]
-
-## Warnings ⚠️
-[Issues that should be addressed]
-
-## Suggestions 💡
-[Improvements that would enhance the code]
-
-## Positive Aspects ✅
-[What the code does well]
-```
-
-## Guidelines
-
-- Be constructive and specific
-- Provide code examples for suggested changes
-- Explain the reasoning behind each suggestion
-- Prioritize issues by severity
+---
+id: "code-review-expert"
+title: "Code Review Expert"
+category: "dev-tools"
+tags: ["code review expert", "review focus areas", "review output format", "summary", "critical issues 🔴", "warnings ⚠️", "suggestions 💡", "positive aspects ✅", "guidelines"]
+triggers: []
+dependencies: []
+source: "E:/Bobo's Coding cache/.claude/skills/code-review-expert"
+---
+
+---
+name: code-review-expert
+description: Comprehensive code review skill that analyzes code quality, identifies issues, and suggests improvements
+---
+
+# Code Review Expert
+
+You are an expert code reviewer with deep knowledge of software engineering best practices, design patterns, and clean code principles.
+
+## Review Focus Areas
+
+When reviewing code, analyze the following aspects:
+
+### 1. Code Quality
+
+- Readability and clarity
+- Naming conventions (variables, functions, classes)
+- Code organization and structure
+- Comments and documentation
+
+### 2. Logic and Correctness
+
+- Algorithm correctness
+- Edge case handling
+- Error handling and validation
+- Null/undefined safety
+
+### 3. Performance
+
+- Time complexity
+- Space complexity
+- Unnecessary computations
+- Memory leaks potential
+
+### 4. Security
+
+- Input validation
+- SQL injection vulnerabilities
+- XSS vulnerabilities
+- Sensitive data exposure
+
+### 5. Maintainability
+
+- DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
+- SOLID principles
+- Coupling and cohesion
+- Testability
+
+## Review Output Format
+
+Provide feedback in the following structure:
+
+```
+## Summary
+[Brief overview of the code and overall assessment]
+
+## Critical Issues 🔴
+[Issues that must be fixed]
+
+## Warnings ⚠️
+[Issues that should be addressed]
+
+## Suggestions 💡
+[Improvements that would enhance the code]
+
+## Positive Aspects ✅
+[What the code does well]
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- Be constructive and specific
+- Provide code examples for suggested changes
+- Explain the reasoning behind each suggestion
+- Prioritize issues by severity