opencode-skills-collection 3.1.0 → 3.1.2

package/bundled-skills/ai-md/SKILL.md

@@ -1,523 +0,0 @@
----
-name: ai-md
-description: "Convert human-written CLAUDE.md into AI-native structured-label format. Battle-tested across 4 models. Same rules, fewer tokens, higher compliance."
-risk: safe
-source: community
-date_added: "2026-03-11"
----
-
-# AI.MD v4 — The Complete AI-Native Conversion System
-
-## When to Use This Skill
-
-- Use when your CLAUDE.md is long but AI still ignores your rules
-- Use when token usage is too high from verbose system instructions
-- Use when you want to optimize any LLM system prompt for compliance
-- Use when migrating rules between AI tools (Claude, Codex, Gemini, Grok)
-
-## What Is AI.MD?
-
-AI.MD is a methodology for converting human-written `CLAUDE.md` (or any LLM system instructions)
-into a structured-label format that AI models follow more reliably, using fewer tokens.
-
-**The paradox we proved:** Adding more rules in natural language DECREASES compliance.
-Converting the same rules to structured format RESTORES and EXCEEDS it.
-
-```
-Human prose (6 rules, 1 line)  → AI follows 4 of them
-Structured labels (6 rules, 6 lines) → AI follows all 6
-Same content. Different format. Different results.
-```
-
----
-
-## Why It Works: How LLMs Actually Process Instructions
-
-LLMs don't "read" — they **attend**. Understanding this changes everything.
-
-### Mechanism 1: Attention Splitting
-
-When multiple rules share one line, the model's attention distributes across all tokens equally.
-Each rule gets a fraction of the attention weight. Some rules get lost.
-
-When each rule has its own line, the model processes it as a distinct unit.
-Full attention weight on each rule.
-
-```
-# ONE LINE = attention splits 5 ways (some rules drop to near-zero weight)
-EVIDENCE: no-fabricate no-guess | 禁用詞:應該是/可能是 → 先拿數據 | Read/Grep→行號 curl→數據 | "好像"/"覺得"→自己先跑test | guess=shame-wall
-
-# FIVE LINES = each rule gets full attention
-EVIDENCE:
-  core: no-fabricate | no-guess | unsure=say-so
-  banned: 應該是/可能是/感覺是/推測 → 先拿數據
-  proof: all-claims-need(data/line#/source) | Read/Grep→行號 | curl→數據
-  hear-doubt: "好像"/"覺得" → self-test(curl/benchmark) → 禁反問user
-  violation: guess → shame-wall
-```
-
-### Mechanism 2: Zero-Inference Labels
-
-Natural language forces the model to INFER meaning from context.
-Labels DECLARE meaning explicitly. No inference needed = no misinterpretation.
-
-```
-# AI must infer: what does (防搞混) modify? what does 例外 apply to?
-GATE-1: 收到任務→先用一句話複述(防搞混)(長對話中每個新任務都重新觸發) | 例外: signals命中「處理一下」=直接執行
-
-# AI reads labels directly: trigger→action→exception. Zero ambiguity.
-GATE-1 複述:
-  trigger: new-task
-  action: first-sentence="你要我做的是___"
-  persist: 長對話中每個新任務都重新觸發
-  exception: signal=處理一下 → skip
-  yields-to: GATE-3
-```
-
-Key insight: Labels like `trigger:` `action:` `exception:` work across ALL languages.
-The model doesn't need to parse Chinese/Japanese/English grammar to understand structure.
-**Labels are the universal language between humans and AI.**
-
-### Mechanism 3: Semantic Anchoring
-
-Labeled sub-items create **matchable tags**. When a user's input contains a keyword,
-the model matches it directly to the corresponding label — like a hash table lookup
-instead of a full-text search.
-
-```
-# BURIED: AI scans the whole sentence, might miss the connection
-加新功能→第一句問schema | 新增API/endpoint=必確認health-check.py覆蓋
-
-# ANCHORED: label "new-api:" directly matches user saying "加個 API"
-MOAT:
-  new-feature: 第一句問schema/契約/關聯
-  new-api: 必確認health-check.py覆蓋(GATE-5)
-```
-
-**Real proof:** This specific technique fixed a test case that failed 5 consecutive times
-across all models. The label `new-api:` raised Codex T5 from ❌→✅ on first try.
-
----
-
-## The Conversion Process: What Happens When You Give Me a CLAUDE.md
-
-Here's the exact mental model I use when converting natural language instructions to AI.MD format.
-
-### Phase 1: UNDERSTAND — Read Like a Compiler, Not a Human
-
-I read the CLAUDE.md **as if I'm building a state machine**, not reading a document.
-
-For each sentence, I ask:
-1. **Is this a TRIGGER?** (What input activates this behavior?)
-2. **Is this an ACTION?** (What should the AI do?)
-3. **Is this a CONSTRAINT?** (What should the AI NOT do?)
-4. **Is this METADATA?** (Priority, timing, persistence, exceptions?)
-5. **Is this a HUMAN EXPLANATION?** (Why the rule exists — delete this)
-
-Example analysis:
-
-```
-Input: "收到任務→先用一句話複述(防搞混)(長對話中每個新任務都重新觸發) | 例外: signals命中「處理一下」=直接執行"
-
-Decomposition:
-  ├─ TRIGGER:    "收到任務" → new-task
-  ├─ ACTION:     "先用一句話複述" → first-sentence="你要我做的是___"
-  ├─ DELETE:     "(防搞混)" → human motivation, AI doesn't need this
-  ├─ METADATA:   "(長對話中每個新任務都重新觸發)" → persist: every-new-task
-  └─ EXCEPTION:  "例外: signals命中「處理一下」=直接執行" → exception: signal=處理一下 → skip
-```
-
-### Phase 2: DECOMPOSE — Break Every `|` and `()` Into Atomic Rules
-
-The #1 source of compliance failure is **compound rules**.
-A single line with 3 rules separated by `|` looks like 1 instruction to AI.
-It needs to be 3 separate instructions.
-
-**The splitter test:** If you can put "AND" between two parts of a sentence,
-they are separate rules and MUST be on separate lines.
-
-```
-# Input: one sentence hiding 4 rules
-禁用詞:應該是/可能是→先拿數據 | "好像"/"覺得"→自己先跑test(不是問user)→有數據才能決定
-
-# Analysis: I find 4 hidden rules
-Rule 1: certain words are banned → use data instead
-Rule 2: hearing doubt words → run self-test
-Rule 3: don't ask the user for data → look it up yourself
-Rule 4: preference claims → require A/B comparison before accepting
-
-# Output: 4 atomic rules
-banned: 應該是/可能是/感覺是/推測 → 先拿數據
-hear-doubt: "好像"/"覺得" → self-test(curl/benchmark)
-self-serve: 禁反問user(自己查)
-compare: "覺得A比B好" → A/B實測先行
-```
-
-### Phase 3: LABEL — Assign Function Labels
-
-Every atomic rule gets a label that declares its function.
-I use a standard vocabulary of ~12 label types:
-
-| Label | What It Declares | When to Use |
-|-------|-----------------|-------------|
-| `trigger:` | What input activates this | Every gate/rule needs one |
-| `action:` | What the AI must do | The core behavior |
-| `exception:` | When NOT to do it | Override cases |
-| `not-triggered:` | Explicit negative examples | Prevent over-triggering |
-| `format:` | Output format constraint | Position, structure requirements |
-| `priority:` | Override relationship | When rules conflict |
-| `yields-to:` | Which gate takes precedence | Inter-gate priority |
-| `persist:` | Durability across turns | Rules that survive conversation flow |
-| `timing:` | When in the workflow | Before/after/during constraints |
-| `violation:` | Consequence of breaking | Accountability mechanism |
-| `banned:` | Forbidden words/actions | Hard no-go list |
-| `policy:` | Decision heuristic | When judgment is needed |
-
-**The label selection technique:** I pick the label that would help a DIFFERENT AI model
-(not the one being instructed) understand this rule's function if it saw ONLY the label.
-If `trigger:` clearly tells you "this is what activates the rule" without reading anything else,
-it's the right label.
-
-### Phase 4: STRUCTURE — Build the Architecture
-
-I organize rules into a hierarchy:
-
-```
-<gates>    = Hard stops (MUST check before any action)
-<rules>    = Behavioral guidelines (HOW to act)
-<rhythm>   = Workflow patterns (WHEN to do what)
-<conn>     = Connection strings (FACTS — never compress)
-<ref>      = On-demand references (don't load until needed)
-<learn>    = Evolution rules (how the system improves)
-```
-
-**Why this order matters:**
-Gates come first because they MUST be checked before anything else.
-The model processes instructions top-to-bottom. Priority = position.
-
-**Grouping technique:** Rules that share a DOMAIN become sub-items under one heading.
-
-```
-# FLAT (bad): 7 unrelated rules, model treats equally
-1. no guessing
-2. backup before editing
-3. use tables for output
-4. check health after deploy
-5. don't say "應該是"
-6. test before reporting
-7. all claims need proof
-
-# GROUPED (good): 3 domains, model understands hierarchy
-EVIDENCE:               ← domain: truthfulness
-  core: no-guess
-  banned: 應該是
-  proof: all-claims-need-data
-
-SCOPE:                  ← domain: safety
-  pre-change: backup
-  pre-run: check-health
-
-OUTPUT:                 ← domain: format
-  format: tables+numbers
-```
-
-### Phase 5: RESOLVE — Handle Conflicts and Edge Cases
-
-This is the most critical and least obvious phase. Natural language instructions
-often contain **hidden conflicts** that humans resolve with intuition but AI cannot.
-
-**Technique: Conflict Detection Matrix**
-
-I check every pair of gates/rules for conflicts:
-
-```
-GATE-1 (複述: repeat task) vs GATE-3 (保護檔: backup first)
-→ CONFLICT: If user says "edit .env", should AI repeat the task first, or backup first?
-→ RESOLUTION: priority: GATE-3 > GATE-1 (safety before courtesy)
-             yields-to: GATE-3 (explicit in GATE-1)
-
-GATE-4 (報結論: cite evidence) vs bug-close (記錄根因: write root cause)
-→ CONFLICT: bug-close requires stating root cause, but GATE-4 bans definitive claims
-→ RESOLUTION: timing: GATE-4 is pre-conclusion brake; bug-close is post-verification record
-             GATE-4 not-triggered when bug already verified
-
-EVIDENCE (no-guess) vs user says "處理一下" (just do it)
-→ CONFLICT: should AI verify assumptions or execute immediately?
-→ RESOLUTION: signal "處理一下" = user has decided, skip confirmation
-```
-
-**Technique: Not-Triggered Lists**
-
-For any rule that could over-trigger, I add explicit negative examples:
-
-```
-GATE-4 報結論:
-  trigger: 最終歸因/根因判定/不可逆建議
-  not-triggered: 中間進度數字 | 純指標查詢 | 工具原始輸出 | 已知事實 | 轉述文件
-```
-
-This was discovered because Gemini 2.5 Pro kept triggering GATE-4 on simple number queries
-like "成功率怎麼樣?". Adding `not-triggered: 純指標查詢` fixed it immediately.
-
-### Phase 6: TEST — Multi-Model Validation (Non-Negotiable)
-
-**This is not optional.** Every conversion MUST be validated by 2+ different LLM models.
-
-Why? Because a format that works perfectly for Claude might confuse GPT, and vice versa.
-The whole point of AI.MD is that it works ACROSS models.
-
-**The exam protocol we developed:**
-
-1. Write 8 test inputs that simulate REAL user behavior (not textbook examples)
-2. Include "trap" questions where two rules conflict
-3. Include "negative" tests where a rule should NOT trigger
-4. DO NOT hint which rules are being tested (the AI shouldn't know)
-5. Run each model independently
-6. Score each answer: ✅ full compliance, ⚠️ partial, ❌ miss
-7. If ANY model's score drops after conversion → revert that specific change
-
-**The 8-question template we used:**
-
-```
-T1: Simple task (does GATE-1 trigger?)
-T2: Database write attempt (does GATE-2 catch it?)
-T3: Protected file edit (does GATE-3 fire FIRST, before GATE-1?)
-T4: Root cause analysis (does GATE-4 require all 4 questions?)
-T5: Business API addition (does AI mention health-check.py?)
-T6: User says "好像X比Y好" (does AI run comparison or just accept it?)
-T7: User says "處理一下" (does AI skip GATE-1 confirmation?)
-T8: Simple metric query (does GATE-4 NOT trigger?)
-```
-
----
-
-## Special Techniques Discovered During Battle-Testing
-
-### Technique 1: Bilingual Label Strategy
-
-Labels in English, output strings in the user's language.
-English labels are shorter AND more universally understood by all models.
-But the actual text the AI produces must stay in the user's language.
-
-```
-action: first-sentence="你要我做的是___"    ← AI outputs Chinese
-format: must-be-line-1                      ← structural constraint in English
-banned: 應該是/可能是                        ← forbidden words stay in original language
-```
-
-**Why this works:** English label vocabulary (`trigger`, `action`, `exception`) maps directly
-to concepts in every model's training data. Chinese grammar labels (觸發條件, 執行動作, 例外情況)
-are less standardized across models.
-
-### Technique 2: State Machine Gates
-
-Instead of treating rules as a flat list, model them as a **state machine**:
-- Each gate has a `trigger` (input state)
-- Each gate has an `action` (transition)
-- Gates have `priority` (which fires first when multiple match)
-- Gates have `yields-to` (explicit conflict resolution)
-
-This gives AI a clear execution model:
-```
-Input arrives → Check GATE-3 first (highest priority) → Check GATE-1 → Check GATE-2 → ...
-```
-
-Instead of:
-```
-Input arrives → Read all rules → Try to figure out which one applies → Maybe miss one
-```
-
-### Technique 3: XML Section Tags for Semantic Boundaries
-
-Using `<gates>`, `<rules>`, `<rhythm>`, `<conn>` as section delimiters
-creates hard boundaries that prevent rule-bleed (where the model confuses
-which section a rule belongs to).
-
-```xml
-<gates label="硬性閘門 | 優先序: gates>rules>rhythm | 缺一項=STOP">
-...gates here...
-</gates>
-
-<rules>
-...rules here...
-</rules>
-```
-
-The `label` attribute on the opening tag serves as a section-level instruction:
-"these are hard gates, this is their priority, missing = stop"
-
-### Technique 4: Cross-Reference Instead of Duplicate
-
-When the same concept appears in multiple rules, DON'T repeat it.
-Use a cross-reference label.
-
-```
-# BAD: health-check mentioned in 3 places
-GATE-5: ...check health-check.py...
-MOAT: ...must check health-check.py...
-SCOPE: ...verify health-check.py exists...
-
-# GOOD: single source of truth + cross-reference
-GATE-5 驗收:
-  checks:
-    新增API → 確認health-check.py覆蓋
-
-MOAT:
-  new-api: 必確認health-check.py覆蓋(GATE-5)    ← cross-ref, not duplicate
-```
-
-### Technique 5: The "What Not Why" Principle
-
-Delete ALL text that exists to explain WHY a rule exists.
-AI needs WHAT to do, not WHY.
-
-```
-# DELETE these human explanations:
-(防搞混)                     → motivation
-(不是大爆破,是每次順手一點)    → metaphor
-(想清楚100倍後才做現在的)     → backstory
-(因為用戶是非工程師)          → justification
-
-# KEEP only the actionable instruction:
-action: first-sentence="你要我做的是___"
-refactor: 同區塊連續第3次修改 → extract
-```
-
-Every deleted explanation saves tokens AND removes noise that could confuse the model
-about what it should actually DO.
-
----
-
-## Two-Stage Workflow
-
-### Stage 1: PREVIEW — Measure, Don't Touch
-
-```bash
-echo "=== Current Token Burn ==="
-claude_md=$(wc -c < ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null || echo 0)
-rules=$(cat ~/.claude/rules/*.md 2>/dev/null | wc -c || echo 0)
-total=$((claude_md + rules))
-tokens=$((total / 4))
-echo "CLAUDE.md:     $claude_md bytes"
-echo "rules/*.md:    $rules bytes"
-echo "Total:         $total bytes ≈ $tokens tokens/turn"
-echo "50-turn session: ≈ $((tokens * 50)) tokens on instructions alone"
-```
-
-Then: Read all auto-loaded files. Identify redundancy, prose overhead, and duplicate rules.
-
-**Ask user before proceeding: "Want to distill?"**
-
-### Stage 2: DISTILL — Convert with Safety Net
-
-1. **Backup**: `cp ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md.bak-pre-distill`
-2. **Phase 1-5**: Run the full conversion process above
-3. **Phase 6**: Run multi-model test (minimum 2 models, 8 questions)
-4. **Report**: Show before/after scores
-
-```
-=== AI.MD Conversion Complete ===
-
-Before: {old} bytes ({old_score} compliance)
-After:  {new} bytes ({new_score} compliance)
-Saved:  {percent}% bytes, +{delta} compliance points
-
-Backup: ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md.bak-pre-distill
-Restore: cp ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md.bak-pre-distill ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md
-```
-
----
-
-## AI-Native Template
-
-```xml
-# PROJECT-NAME | lang:xx | for-AI-parsing | optimize=results-over-format
-
-<user>
-identity, tone, signals, decision-style (key: value pairs)
-</user>
-
-<gates label="硬性閘門 | 優先序: gates>rules>rhythm | 缺一項=STOP">
-
-GATE-1 name:
-  trigger: ...
-  action: ...
-  exception: ...
-  yields-to: ...
-
-GATE-2 name:
-  trigger: ...
-  action: ...
-  policy: ...
-
-</gates>
-
-<rules>
-
-RULE-NAME:
-  core: ...
-  banned: ...
-  hear-X: ... → action
-  violation: ...
-
-</rules>
-
-<rhythm>
-workflow patterns as key: value pairs
-</rhythm>
-
-<conn>
-connection strings (keep exact — NEVER compress facts/credentials/URLs)
-</conn>
-
-<ref label="on-demand Read only">
-file-path → purpose
-</ref>
-
-<learn>
-how system evolves over time
-</learn>
-```
-
----
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-| Don't | Do Instead | Why |
-|-------|------------|-----|
-| Human prose in CLAUDE.md | Structured labels | Prose requires inference; labels are direct |
-| Multiple rules on one line | One concept per line | Attention splits across dense lines |
-| Parenthetical explanations | Remove them | AI needs "what" not "why" |
-| Same rule in 3 places | Single source + cross-ref | Duplicates can diverge and confuse |
-| 20+ flat rules | 5-7 domains with sub-items | Hierarchy helps model organize behavior |
-| Compress without testing | Validate with 2+ models | What works for Claude might fail for GPT |
-| Assume format doesn't matter | Test it — it does | Same content, different format = different compliance |
-| Chinese-only labels | English labels + native output | English labels are more universal across models |
-| Flat rule list | State machine with priorities | Clear execution order prevents missed rules |
-
----
-
-## Real-World Results
-
-Tested 2026-03, washinmura.jp CLAUDE.md, 5 rounds, 4 models:
-
-| Round | Change | Codex (GPT-5.3) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.6 |
-|-------|--------|-----------------|----------------|-----------------|
-| R1 (baseline prose) | — | 8/8 | 7/8 | 8/8 |
-| R2 (added rules) | +gates +examples | 7/8 | 6/8 | — |
-| R3 (refined prose) | +exceptions +non-triggers | 6/8 | 6.5/8 | — |
-| R4 (AI-native convert) | structured labels | **8/8** | **7/8** | **8/8** |
-
-Key findings:
-1. **More prose rules = worse compliance** (R1→R3: scores dropped as rules grew)
-2. **Structured format = restored + exceeded** (R4: back to max despite more rules)
-3. **Cross-model consistency**: Format that works for one model works for all (except Grok)
-4. **Semantic anchoring**: The `new-api:` label fix was the single most impactful change
-
-**The uncomfortable truth: Your beautiful, carefully-written CLAUDE.md
-might be HURTING your AI's performance. Structure > Prose. Always.**
-
-## Limitations
-- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
-- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
-- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.