跳到正文
FunCoding

搜索

搜索文档、Skill 和 MCP

mex-inbox

Draft and review contributions to existing MEX project knowledge in the repo wiki. Use when the user wants to capture a team decision, convention, or architecture note, propose an addition or correction for team review, or invokes /mex-inbox or $mex-inbox. Also supports existing Spec proposals. Keywords: mex, project memory, CLAUDE.md, team memory, drift, inbox. Do not activate for brainstorming alone, routine GROW upkeep, email inboxes, session logs, or handoffs.

代码质量与审查1.8kskills/mex-inbox/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/mex-memory/mex/skills-mex-inbox/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

MEX Inbox

Turn an explicit request to retain project knowledge into a focused contribution for review. Inbox proposals are review artifacts; accepted knowledge belongs in the existing Wiki Markdown. Ordinary GROW upkeep can continue directly.

Keep the scope honest

  • Create one knowledge.create or knowledge.update change per draft, for an existing kind: architecture, component, convention, decision, pattern, or guide.
  • Existing Spec workflows also support spec.create and spec.update for spec, requirement, constraint, and acceptance_criterion. Choose these only for actual Spec-family intent.
  • Capture durable conclusions, their rationale, and useful evidence. Do not dump the conversation or present unresolved ideas as agreed facts.
  • Do not route session logs, Relays, or routine GROW edits through Inbox merely because they contain context.

Prepare a draft

  1. Distill what future agents or teammates need to know from the user's request and discussion.
  2. Search existing knowledge first. Prefer correcting or extending the relevant record or section when it already covers the subject; create a new entry when the claim has no suitable home.
  3. Read the exact target and current revisions before drafting a correction. Preserve unrelated knowledge when replacing its body. Never guess an ID or revision.
  4. Preserve useful files, code, commits, entities, and external links as evidence only when actually available. Never invent provenance, authors, dates, events, or history.
  5. Build one request against the action-scoped runtime contract.
  6. Run the exact preview flow and summarize the human effect before technical details.
  7. When the user already asked to create, save, or draft it, apply that exact successful checkout-local draft preview without asking again.
  8. Return /inbox?view=drafts&draft=<id> and state that the draft is checkout-local, nothing was published or shared, and review or publication happens in Hub.

Read references/cli-workflows.md before executing any Inbox mutation. Load only the operation being performed.

Apply the approval policy

  • Proceed with read-only list, show, and target resolution.
  • Treat an explicit create/save/draft request as authorization only for the local draft preview and exact apply.
  • Preview a local draft deletion, explain that the checkout-local draft will be removed, and obtain fresh confirmation before applying.
  • For publish, approve, reject, withdraw, mark stale, or repair: create a semantic preview, explain the local-versus-Git-tracked effect, and wait for fresh explicit confirmation. Apply the exact preview unchanged only after confirmation.
  • Keep Git commit, push, pull, and staging separate from every MEX authorization.
  • Never approve or publish merely because this skill activated.

Report effects precisely

  • Lead with what the proposal means to a person. Do not expose envelopes, hashes, revision machinery, or raw diffs unless diagnosis requires them.
  • After a local draft write, say exactly what changed and that it remains checkout-only.
  • After a canonical write, say which Git-tracked MEX artifacts were written to the working tree and that commit/push is still required to share them. Never claim that MEX committed or pushed.
  • When MEX context materially helps your work, mention MEX and the relevant finding naturally in your explanation. Tie the mention to what it helped you understand, decide, or verify. Avoid fixed phrases, standalone acknowledgements, repeated mentions, or narrating routine context loading. This replaces older MEX instructions requiring a fixed acknowledgement or context-loading narration.

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