跳到正文
FunCoding

搜索

搜索文档、Skill 和 MCP

ponytail-review

Quality review of a diff: bugs, security, real load, missing tests, speed, and what to delete. Each finding says what goes wrong and how to fix it.

测试158k.openclaw/skills/ponytail-review/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/dietrichgebert/ponytail/openclaw-skills-ponytail-review/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Review a change like the senior developer who will be paged when it breaks. Order of importance: correct, safe, holds under load, tested, fast, lean. Lean still matters: every extra line must be read, tested and fixed later. This is a report the user asked for, so give it in full.

1. Understand first

  • Review what the user names: uncommitted or staged changes, a branch, a PR link, or files. Nothing named: the uncommitted changes, or the last commit if there are none.
  • Read the diff, then the code it touches: callers of every changed function, the functions it calls, the tests, the README.
  • Trace the real flow: where data comes in, what is stored, what goes out.
  • A change can break code it does not touch. When a signature, return value or behavior changes, grep every caller.
  • Find the expected load in the repo (README, deploy config): one person running a script, or many users and processes at once. Judge scale against that, and say which load you assumed.

2. Look for

  1. Bug: wrong result, crash, missed edge case (empty, zero, last item, rounding, time zones), a caller broken by the change, a fix applied in one caller while the shared function stays broken.
  2. Risk: security holes (injection, weak randomness, secrets, missing checks on input from users), data loss (errors swallowed, writes in the wrong order, no transaction).
  3. Scale: fine for one user, wrong for many: check-then-write races, the same work done by every process, memory or lists that only grow, a query per item, O(n^2) on big input, per-process state that must be shared.
  4. Missing test: risky new logic (a branch, a parser, money, security, data writes, a bug fix) with no test that fails when it breaks. One good test, not coverage.
  5. Speed: big slowdowns are problems. Small wins (work repeated in a hot loop) are suggestions; some software counts every millisecond.
  6. Lean: code that should not exist or should be smaller.
    • delete: dead code, unused options, speculative features
    • reuse: the repo already has this helper (name the path)
    • stdlib / native: the standard library or platform already does it; a new dependency for a few lines
    • yagni: abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets
    • merge: near-copies that must change together
    • split: one function doing several unrelated jobs, so it is hard to read or test. Split by job, never by line count, and never into helpers that exist only to make a function shorter.

3. Check before you report

  • Every finding needs a concrete case: "this input or situation leads to this wrong result". No case, no finding.
  • Re-read the lines and confirm: the caller exists, the value can really be empty, the code really is unused.
  • A shortcut marked with a ponytail: comment that names its limit is a decision, not a finding, unless the expected load already crosses it.
  • Propose the smallest fix that works. Prefer fixes that delete code. Never add layers, frameworks or config the problem does not need.
  • No style taste, no "consider", no vague worries.

4. Output

Very simple English: short sentences, everyday words. Explain a technical term the first time you use it. The reader may never have seen this code.

Start with What this change does: in two or three sentences.

Then the findings in three groups, skip empty groups:

  • Must fix: bug, security, data loss, breaks at the expected load.
  • Should fix: risky code without a test, real slowness, duplication, a function that mixes jobs, code that should not exist.
  • Nice to have: small speed-ups, shorter forms.

Number findings across all groups, so the user can say "fix 2 and 5". Every finding has all four parts, each one or two short sentences:

  1. Orders land on the wrong day (billing/close_day.py:L40-52)
    • What this is: At midnight this job closes the day and bills all orders of that day.
    • Problem: It takes "today" from the server clock, which runs in UTC. An order placed at 00:30 in Berlin is billed on the day before.
    • Fix: Compute the day once in the shop's time zone: datetime.now(ZoneInfo("Europe/Berlin")).date(). One line, nothing else changes.
    • If we skip it: Late orders show the wrong date, and accounting fixes them by hand.

End with:

  • Verdict: Ship. or Verdict: fix 1 and 3 first.
  • Lean: -<N> lines possible. when lean findings exist.
  • Not checked: one line, if something mattered and you could not check it.

Nothing found: What this change does:, then Looks good. Ship. and one line on what you checked.

Lists findings, changes no code.

相似的 Skill

skill-creator
anthropics/skills180k

skill-creator

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

测试

ci-cd-and-automation
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

ci-cd-and-automation

Automates CI/CD pipeline setup. Use when setting up or modifying build and deployment pipelines. Use when you need to automate quality gates, configure test runners in CI, or establish deployment strategies.

测试

idea-refine
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

idea-refine

Refines raw ideas into sharp, actionable concepts through structured divergent and convergent thinking. Use when an idea is still vague, when you need to stress-test assumptions before committing to a plan, or when you want to expand options before converging on one. Triggers on "ideate", "refine this idea", or "stress-test my plan".

测试

doubt-driven-development
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

doubt-driven-development

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production auth, security-sensitive logic, a high-stakes migration, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now than to debug later.

测试

debugging-and-error-recovery
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

debugging-and-error-recovery

Guides systematic root-cause debugging. Use when tests fail, builds break, something that worked yesterday broke, behavior doesn't match expectations, or you encounter any unexpected error. Use when you need to figure out what broke and why — a systematic approach to finding and fixing the root cause rather than guessing.

测试

constraint-driven-development
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

constraint-driven-development

Establishes a project's quality bar as a written contract and stops agents quietly lowering it. Interviews the user on which dimensions matter, supplies sane default thresholds when they have no number in mind, records everything in CONSTRAINTS.md, and watches the diff for a weakened bar — new @ts-ignore or eslint-disable suppressions, skipped or deleted tests, assertions stripped out, unimplemented stubs, thresholds edited down. Use when no quality bar is written down, when the user says "set up constraints" or "define our standards", when the user wants dimensions they care about — accessibility, web performance, coverage — set up as enforced constraints, when an agent keeps silencing checks or skipping tests to get to green, when you need a coverage or performance threshold and don't know what number to pick, or when an agent writes more code than anyone will read.

测试