Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, Skills and MCP

rdd-advisory-transport

Trigger: reviewer transport, advisory transport, review adapter, lens prompt/schema, OpenCode reviewer plugin, Codex reviewer, ReviewProviderContract. Enforce the shared Go advisory reviewer transport contract.

代码质量与审查7.6kskills/rdd-advisory-transport/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/gentleman-programming/gentle-ai/rdd-advisory-transport/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Activation Contract

Load when changing how any runtime (Claude Code, OpenCode, Codex, future) invokes an RDD reviewer, refuter, or fix validator, or when touching reviewer prompts, lens evidence, result schemas, adapters, or transport capability policy.

Hard Rules

  • One Go provider contract owns binding, frozen evidence, lens mandate, prompt, result schema, byte budget, JSON extraction, and admission. Start from existing native sources (reviewLensContextBlock, ReviewerResultSchema, RunReviewCaptureResult, CaptureAdmittedReviewerResult); never build a parallel system.
  • Adapters only invoke the reviewer and return raw bytes plus a transport error. An adapter must never parse bindings, rebuild prompts, copy schemas, apply local budgets, parse JSON, capture or preserve results, hold retry state, or decide blocking.
  • Runtime output is advisory: it cannot create authority, mutate review state, mint a receipt, or open a gate. Only Go admission does.
  • Byte budget refuses before invocation; never truncate. Malformed, truncated, or incomplete input never becomes PASS, complete, or a clean receipt.
  • No OpenCode restart, child isolation, special session, or OPENCODE_DISABLE_* variables. An ordinary running session is sufficient.
  • The RDD semantic pipeline is untouchable: lens selection, severity meanings, candidate causality, refuter adjudication, bounded correction, verification, terminal receipt, and read-only review-context evaluation. These are review-lifecycle concerns only; ordinary repository policy owns delivery.
  • Refuter and fix validator consume the same provider contract. A validator that could not inspect produced no verdict — surface a blocked decision; never record it as failed (that irreversibly consumes the single correction).
  • Capability advertisement requires shared-contract conformance plus organic runtime proof. Codex stays unadvertised until both positive and fail-closed proofs pass.
  • Transport failures never consume a correction budget, duplicate a capture, or strand a lineage.
  • Historical receipts stay readable; never rewrite provider_command or runtime_interception descriptors.

Decision Gates

ConditionAction
Logic fits "prompt/evidence/schema/validation"It belongs in the Go contract, never an adapter.
Adapter cannot expose raw final outputRuntime stays typed unavailable; no artifact-parser workaround.
Cutover slice exceeds 1000 lines/PRChained PRs on the tracker; advertisement flip lands last.
Shared prompt changes any semantic outcomeSTOP; regression against baseline blocks the slice.
Slice touches negotiated START / repository_contextCoordinate with the deferred Wave 7 switch-removal finding first.

Execution Steps

  1. Freeze the boundary: contract-level tests around current native prompt/evidence/schema/admission.
  2. Extract the Go provider contract; differential-test against current admission.
  3. Add adapter-minimality static guards (no binding types, prompt text, schema copies, budgets, parsers, capture, retry in adapters) — from the first adapter slice, not last.
  4. Cut Claude + OpenCode over without an advertised intermediate path; delete the OpenCode plugin and isolation machinery in the same release slice.
  5. Prove Codex organically before advertising; retire historical transport code last.
  6. Gate every slice on the bench journey corpus diff: all journeys unchanged.

Output Contract

Report per slice: contract surface touched, adapter minimality guard status, bench corpus diff result, semantic regression result, capability advertisement state, and any unresolved maintainer decision (e.g. receipt provider_contract descriptor).

References

  • references/shared-advisory-transport-proposal.md — full proposal: architecture, deletion candidates, test plan, risks.
  • references/issue-impact-matrix.md — per-issue dispositions under the shared contract; a maintainer condition in an issue's own thread always outranks its row.

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/ponytail159k

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