sync-core-docs
Create or audit a repo's README.md, AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, and REVIEW.md docs.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 所属仓库
- esond/skills
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-07
- Stars
- ★ 0
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- sync-core-docs
- description
- Create or audit a repo's README.md, AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, and REVIEW.md docs.
- argument-hint
- [--readme] [--claude] [--review]
- disable-model-invocation
- true
02 资源文件 1
- 参考文档agents/openai.yaml173 B
03 SKILL.md 正文
Call the Skill tool with "sync-core-repo-docs", passing these flags straight through as its targets: $ARGUMENTS
The flags are --readme, --claude, --review. They combine, and no flags
means process all three in the canonical README → AGENTS → REVIEW order. The
skill owns the runbook; this one only routes the invocation and its flags.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
work-item-voice
Write or edit the user's issues in their own voice, in any work tracker — Jira, Linear, GitHub Issues, Azure DevOps. Covers features (new behavior), tasks (work that needs doing), and bugs (behavior that does not match expectation). Load this whenever the deliverable is an issue body, whether they say "file a bug", "write a ticket", "draft a story", "create an issue for this", "turn this into a Jira", "write this up in Linear", or paste a thread and ask for an issue out of it. Load it too whenever text goes into an issue that already exists — "record this in the issue", "add what we found to the ticket", "note this on the card", "update the one about refunds", or naming an issue by its key and asking for a fact to go in it — and when writing or updating one is a step inside a larger task. Features get behavior-driven framing with no implementation prescribed, and bugs get expected versus actual. Not for a comment on an issue, which is a conversation turn.
conversational-voice
Write the user's side of a conversation with another person, in the user's own voice: Slack messages and replies, DMs, email, PR and code-review comments, Linear or Jira comments, and any other turn in an exchange that goes out under the user's name. Load this whenever the deliverable is a message a human will read as written by the user, whether they say "draft a Slack message", "reply to this", "how should I word this", "tell the team", "ask them about X", "send a note to", or just paste a thread and ask what to say back. Load it too when tightening, shortening, or sanity-checking a message they already wrote, and when a message is one step of a larger task. The register is direct and informal, the way they'd talk to a friend or acquaintance, with the answer up front for a reader who skims. Not for something the user authors rather than sends — an issue body, a PR description, a commit message — even though a person reads those too.
sync-core-repo-docs
Create or audit a repo's three core doc files — README.md, the agent instructions file (AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md), and REVIEW.md — in that dependency order. If a file is missing, generate it from the codebase; if it exists, audit it against the current code and apply targeted fixes after confirmation. README.md gets a developer from clone to running the project; AGENTS.md captures coding guidance for the agent (delegating to /init or claude-md-improver); REVIEW.md holds guidance for code reviewers, human or automated, without duplicating AGENTS.md. Target files with --readme, --claude, and --review, or run all three. Use whenever the user wants to set up, bootstrap, scaffold, refresh, audit, update, or sync a repo's docs, or says things like "create a README", "is my README still accurate", "write a CLAUDE.md", "write an AGENTS.md", "audit our docs", or "get this repo ready for contributors" — even when only one file is named. Prefer it over claude-md-improver when README or REVIEW are also in scope.
righting-software-system-design
Opt-in, collaborative system-design workflow based on Juval Löwy's iDesign methodology in *Righting Software*. Conducts a multi-phase interview (framing → use cases → volatility analysis → components → call-chain validation → report) that surfaces unknown-unknowns and produces a written recommendation at `decompositions/{system-name}/report.md`. **Run only when the user explicitly invites this workflow** — not for general architecture questions, lightweight design conversations, or quick "where should X live?" questions. Valid triggers: the user names the skill directly, references *Righting Software* / Juval Löwy / iDesign / "The Method" / volatility-based decomposition and asks to run a full session, asks for a "deep" or "structured" or "Löwy-style" system design session, or accepts a prior suggestion to run it. Wait for an explicit yes before entering Phase 0. The skill is interrogative — a back-and-forth interview that challenges each volatility candidate and proposes ones the user hasn't considered.
reorganize-branch-commits
Reorganize the commits on a non-default git branch into a clean, logical history by rewriting the branch — `git reset` + re-commit by default, `git rebase -i` when commit boundaries already align. Propose groupings based on the actual work done (features, refactors, tests, fixes, docs), get explicit user approval, back the branch up, then rewrite history. Use this skill whenever the user wants to tidy up, clean up, reorganize, restructure, squash, or curate commits on a feature branch — even if they phrase it as "my branch is a mess", "squash this down", "combine these commits", "fix up the commit log before I open a PR", or "make the commits presentable for review". Trigger proactively when the user is about to open or push a PR and the branch has scrappy/WIP/"fix" commits to collapse. Refuses to operate on default or release-shaped branches (main, master, develop, trunk, production, release, or the repo default) — a feature-branch-only tool.
pr-review-resolver
Address outstanding review feedback on a GitHub pull request: unresolved review threads, submitted review bodies, and general PR comments. Triages each critically, fixes what it agrees with, and pushes back on the rest. Use whenever the user wants to address, fix, resolve, or work through PR review comments or feedback, even if they just say "handle the PR comments", "fix what the reviewers said", or "go through the PR", or pastes a PR URL and asks you to act on the feedback there.