Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, Skills and MCP

grok-delegate

Delegate a coding task to the Grok Build CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Grok — phrasings like "have Grok do X", "delegate this to Grok", "run it through Grok", "use Grok Build to implement/fix/refactor", or "have grok CLI do this" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Grok while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

代码质量与审查2.3kskills/grok-delegate/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent checks the Skill for safety first and installs it only after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/amelnagdy/delegate-skills/grok-delegate/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Grok Delegate

For a trusted repository rejected by Git's ownership check, the relay supports --trust-git-root <exact-worktree-root>. This opt-in affects only relay Git checks, without persistent Git config or Grok permission changes. See dispatch and poll.

You are the orchestrator. This skill lets you hand a bounded coding task to a separate implementer — the Grok Build CLI (grok) — then review what it produced and land it yourself. You write the brief and own the judgment; Grok does the typing under an explicit autonomy profile; you verify and commit.

Nothing here is specific to one orchestrating agent. The loop needs only the ability to run a shell command and read a file, so it works the same whether you are Claude Code, Cursor, OpenCode with a selected model, or any comparable agent. (It is designed for Claude Code and Cursor; treat other orchestrators as designed-for, not yet proven.)

When NOT to use this

  • The task is small enough to just do inline — delegation overhead is not worth it.
  • The grok CLI is not installed, not authenticated, or the account lacks Grok Build beta access.
  • You want to write the code yourself, or you only need a review without an implementer run.

Prerequisites (check once)

  1. grok version succeeds. If not, install on any platform with npm i -g @xai-official/grok (or use the installer from xAI's official Grok CLI docs) and authenticate (grok login, or grok login --device-auth on headless hosts, or set XAI_API_KEY).
  2. Confirm which grok is on PATH. command -v grok shows the active binary and grok version its version — the relay records the version it ran into result.json, so a stale binary is visible after the fact.
  3. You are in (or will point --cd at) the target git repository.

The loop

Run these five steps per task. Steps 1, 4, and 5 are your judgment; 2 and 3 are mechanical.

1. Write the brief

Grok sees only the text you send — no orchestrator chat history, no shared context. Everything the task needs goes in the brief: the goal, the current state, what to change, what to leave untouched, the project's actual gate commands (discover them from the repo's CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md/Makefile — do not assume), and a report contract. Tell Grok it will not commit (you will). Keep one task per brief. Full guidance and a template: references/writing-the-brief.md.

2. Dispatch

Send the brief to Grok with the bundled helper. It wraps grok -p, captures the run, and writes a structured result.json — so your only job is "run a command, read a file." (<skill-dir> below is this skill's installed directory — the folder containing this SKILL.md, i.e. the directory you loaded the skill from. Claude Code prints it as "Base directory for this skill" when the skill loads; on other orchestrators use that same directory — if unsure where it landed, run find ~ -name relay.mjs -path '*grok-delegate*' and substitute the directory above it.)

node "<skill-dir>/scripts/relay.mjs" --brief brief.txt --cd /path/to/repo
# read-only (review/diagnosis; best-effort — verify touchedFiles): add --read-only
# continue the previous Grok session:       add --resume-last  (send only the delta brief)
# hard time limit (watchdog):               add --timeout 2h  (default: off; implementation runs routinely need 1-2h)
# see all options:                          node .../relay.mjs --help

The helper defaults to a write-capable (workspace-write) autonomy profile — --always-approve plus --sandbox workspace — and writes its artifacts to a temp dir, so the repo under review stays clean. It never commits — see step 5. Mechanics, flags, and the result.json shape: references/dispatch-and-poll.md.

3. Wait for completion

The helper blocks until Grok finishes, so back it with whatever your orchestrator offers and resume when it returns:

  • Claude Code: run the Bash call with run_in_background: true; you are notified on completion.
  • Plain shell / other agents: run it in the foreground for short tasks, or background it and poll the result file — … & in bash/zsh (including Git Bash/WSL), or your shell's equivalent (Start-Job in PowerShell, start /b in cmd). The run is done when result.json exists with a status. (A pre-run usage error — bad args or an empty brief — instead exits with code 2 and a stderr message and writes no result file, so check the exit code too. A missing grok binary exits 127 but does write a result.json with status grok_unavailable.)

Do not trust progress trackers over reality: a run is finished when result.json is written and the process has exited. Read the working tree, not a status line. The implementer's full report is the finalMessage field in result.json (also printed in full on stdout between the report markers).

4. Review — do not trust the self-report

Grok's result.json includes its own summary and gate claims. Re-verify, don't accept:

  • Re-run the project's gates yourself (the test/lint/build commands from step 1). Never take "gates passed" on faith.
  • Read the diff against the brief: did Grok do what was asked, nothing more (scope creep) and nothing less? touchedFiles in the result is your starting point.
  • Run the relevant guard skills on the diff if you have them installed (clean-code-guard, test-guard, etc. from guard-skills) — this skill produces the work; those skills judge it.
  • For schema/migration changes, round-trip them; for removals, grep for dangling references.

Full checklist: references/review-and-land.md.

5. Land it

The orchestrator commits. Only after the gates pass and the diff holds:

  • Commit the verified work yourself, with a clear message.
  • If it needs changes, send a delta brief with --resume-last (don't restate the whole task) and review again.

Autonomy model

Grok's default permission mode is ask, which blocks on approval prompts in a headless pipe. The relay therefore always sets autonomy explicitly:

Relay flagWhat Grok getsUse when
(default)--always-approve --sandbox workspaceNormal implementation — writes scoped to the working tree
--read-only--sandbox read-only --always-approveReview / diagnosis — kernel-enforced sandbox, not total (see caveat below)
--full-access--always-approve --sandbox offExplicit opt-in when the task needs unrestricted tools

--always-approve alone would approve all tools (writes, shell, network) — closer to unrestricted than to a workspace-scoped write. Pairing it with --sandbox workspace is what keeps the default safe. Reach for --full-access only when the human asks for it.

--read-only is kernel-enforced, not total. On grok 1.0.25 the read-only sandbox (Seatbelt on macOS, Landlock on Linux) denies grok's own write/search_replace tools and shell redirects with EPERM, so --always-approve only auto-approves tools inside the sandbox. The profile is not total, though: it still permits writes to /tmp, /var/tmp and ~/.grok/, so a repo under one of those paths is not protected, and on macOS it does not restrict child-process network. Always confirm touchedFiles afterward; treat the diff, not the flag, as the guarantee. The relay automates a reporting tripwire: it compares parsed git porcelain and fingerprints the working-tree identity and index entries of Git-visible paths that were already dirty. readOnlyViolation is true when either signal proves a change, false when coverage is complete and detects none, and null when coverage is incomplete. Ignored paths, submodule internals, perfect restores, and attribution of concurrent changes remain outside it, so the diff review stays the guarantee.

Authorization model

Delegation is something the human opts into. Once they have ("run this queue", "proceed"), committing verified, gate-passing work is the agreed contract — that is the whole point. Two limits on that mandate: surface, don't absorb (report Grok's design decisions, defensible-but-unasked turns, and non-blocking nitpicks rather than silently keeping them) and stop for scope changes (if correct completion needs going beyond the brief, ask — don't expand the mandate yourself). The full treatment is in references/review-and-land.md.

References

Similar Skills

claude-api
anthropics/skills180k

claude-api

Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model migration. TRIGGER — read BEFORE opening the target file; don't skip because it "looks like a one-liner" — whenever: the prompt names Claude/Anthropic in any form (Claude, Anthropic, Fable, Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, `anthropic`, `@anthropic-ai`, `claude-*`, `us.anthropic.*`, `[1m]`); the user asks about an LLM (pricing/model choice/limits/caching) — never answer from memory; OR the task is LLM-shaped with provider unstated (agent/MCP/tool-definition/multi-agent/RAG/LLM-judge/computer-use; generate/summarize/extract/classify/rewrite/converse over NL; debugging refusals/cutoffs/streaming/tool-calls/tokens). SKIP only when another provider is being worked on (overrides all triggers): OpenAI/GPT/Gemini/Llama/Mistral/Cohere/Ollama named in the query; OR `grep -rE 'openai|langchain_openai|google.generativeai|genai|mistralai|cohere|ollama'` over the project hits (run this grep FIRST if no provider named — don't Read the file).

Code quality & review

ponytail-review
DietrichGebert/ponytail158k

ponytail-review

Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last commit", "review my PR", "is this over-engineered", /ponytail-review.

Code quality & review

code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-review-and-quality

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.

Code quality & review

documentation-and-adrs
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

documentation-and-adrs

Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

Code quality & review

code-simplification
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-simplification

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

Code quality & review

understand
Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k

understand

Analyze a codebase to produce an interactive knowledge graph for understanding architecture, components, and relationships

Code quality & review