跳到正文
FunCoding

搜索

搜索文档、Skill 和 MCP

commandcode-delegate

Delegate a coding task to the Command Code CLI (`cmd`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Command Code — phrasings like "have Command Code do X", "delegate this to commandcode", "run it through cmd", or "use Command Code to implement/fix/refactor" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Command Code while staying the reviewer. 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/commandcode-delegate/SKILL.md

安装

把这段话发给 Claude Code、Codex 或 Cursor。智能体会先检查安全性,你确认后才安装。

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

SKILL.md

Command Code Delegate

You are the orchestrator. This skill lets you hand a bounded coding task to a separate implementer — the Command Code CLI (cmd) — then review what it produced and land it yourself. You write the brief and own the judgment; Command Code does the typing in your working tree; 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, OpenCode with a selected model, or any comparable agent. (It is designed for and run on Claude Code; 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 cmd CLI is not installed or not authenticated (run cmd login).
  • You want to write the code yourself, or you only need a review (Command Code has its own /review).
  • You are on native Windows and cmdc --version does not work. Upstream recommends WSL for stable Windows use.

Read this before the first dispatch: the autonomy model

Command Code's headless mode has exactly two states, with nothing in between:

  • Default (-p with no --yolo): read, grep, and glob work. Every write, edit, and shell call is refused by the CLI's permission layer, and headless mode has no prompt to grant them mid-run. This is the relay's --read-only.
  • --yolo (alias --dangerously-skip-permissions): every tool is allowed, anywhere the process can reach. There is no filesystem sandbox and no path restriction. This is what an implementation run needs, so the relay passes it by default.

--permission-mode auto-accept and --tools-all do not lift the headless write gate. Direct CLI probes refused write, edit, and shell with both. So an implementation run through Command Code is a full-trust run: scope it with a tight brief and a clean working tree, not with a sandbox. The brief is guidance, and a git worktree isolates a checkout without containing the process. If writes outside the target tree are unacceptable, use an OS-enforced sandbox such as codex-delegate or run this one inside a container.

Prerequisites (check once)

  1. cmd --version succeeds and cmd status reports authenticated. If not, install Command Code and run cmd login.
  2. Confirm the CLI on PATH. On macOS/Linux, command -v cmd shows the active cmd. On native Windows, use cmdc --version; cmd is the system shell. The relay uses cmdc there and launches its npm .cmd shim through cmd.exe. COMMANDCODE_BIN remains an absolute-path override and must never point to the system command interpreter. The relay records the version it ran in result.json, so a wrong binary is visible after the fact.
  3. You are in (or will point --cd at) the target git repository, and its tree is clean before you dispatch — a full-trust run is much easier to review against a clean baseline.

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

Command Code sees only the text you send — no repo memory, no chat history, no shared context (beyond the repo's own AGENTS.md, which it reads automatically). 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 AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md/Makefile — do not assume), and a report contract. Tell it that 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 Command Code with the bundled helper. It wraps cmd -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 '*commandcode-delegate*' and substitute the directory above it.)

node "<skill-dir>/scripts/relay.mjs" --brief brief.txt --cd /path/to/repo
# read-only (review/diagnosis, no edits):   add --read-only
# continue the exact session:               add --session <sessionId>  (from result.json; send only the delta brief)
# fallback when no session id is available: add --continue-last
# 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 (--yolo) run, which intentionally edits the target repository. Its temp directory keeps only relay artifacts out of that repository. The relay 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 Command Code 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, or your shell's equivalent. 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 cmd binary exits 127 but does write a result.json with status commandcode_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

result.json includes Command Code's 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 it do what was asked, nothing more (scope creep) and nothing less? touchedFiles in the result is your starting point — and because the run was full-trust, check for edits outside the paths the brief named, not just inside them.
  • 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 relay never commits, but it cannot stop Command Code under --yolo from writing .git. The brief forbids implementer commits, and the reviewer compares HEAD with the recorded pre-dispatch baseline before landing anything. 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 --session <sessionId> from the prior result.json (use --continue-last only when no session id is available), and review again.

Read-only second opinions

The relay doubles as a clean way to get an adversarial second opinion: dispatch --read-only with a brief that lists the agreed points, then each contested point with both positions, and ask Command Code to defend or concede each — deliverable in its final message, touching no files. The read-only guarantee here is the CLI's own permission layer rather than an OS sandbox, so the relay also checks it after the fact: readOnlyViolation: false means the Git-visible detector saw no change (ignored or outside-repository paths are not covered); true means it saw one; null means git could not tell.

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 Command Code'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

相似的 Skill

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).

代码质量与审查

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.

代码质量与审查

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.

代码质量与审查

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.

代码质量与审查

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.

代码质量与审查

understand
Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k

understand

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

代码质量与审查