复制安装命令
用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。
复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。
Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.
用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。
复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。
来源文件:README.md
Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.
AI agents skip steps.
"Looks correct" replaces running tests. "Trivial change" replaces verification. The agent confidently ships broken code because nothing structurally prevented it from skipping the work.
Harnesses have a second problem: given only a skill list, they do not route eagerly enough, or correctly enough. Good skills sit unused. So this toolkit connects the skills, agents, and workflows we want directly into the harness, automatically. You don't have to understand what is here. Say what you want in plain English and you get all the value we have put into it: the right specialist with the right methodology, behind gates that demand exit codes, not assertions.
44 domain agents, 122 workflow skills, 78 hooks, 136 scripts. Agents carry knowledge, skills enforce methodology, hooks block incomplete work, scripts handle determinism.
Works across Claude Code (/do), Codex ($do), Factory (/do), Reasonix (/do).
$ claude
> /do debug this Go test
Routing: go-engineer + systematic-debugging
Phase 1/4: Reproduce: running test, capturing failure...
Phase 2/4: Hypothesize: 3 candidates from stack trace...
Phase 3/4: Verify: isolated root cause in connection pool timeout
Phase 4/4: Fix: patch applied, test passing, PR opened
✓ Delivered: PR #847, fix connection pool timeout in health check
The router reads intent, picks a Go agent paired with a debugging skill, and runs the full lifecycle. You typed one sentence. The system did the rest.
ROUTE PLAN EXECUTE VERIFY DELIVER RECORD
┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐
│ /do │───▶│ Task │───▶│Agent │───▶│Tests │───▶│ PR │───▶│Route │
│Router│ │ Plan │ │+Skill│ │Gates │ │Branch│ │Result│
└──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘
This is the single thing that separates it from "agent with a system prompt."
| Agent Says | What Happens |
|---|---|
| "Code looks correct, skip tests" | Exit gate requires test output. Blocked. |
| "Trivial change, no verification" | Hook blocks completion without evidence. |
| "Similar to before" | Skill demands case-specific proof. |
| "User is in a hurry" | Protocol overrides time pressure. |
| "I'm confident" | Gate demands exit code, not assertion. |
Hooks fire automatically. Gates block completion. Skills encode counter-arguments at every skip-worthy step. The agent verifies or it doesn't finish.
For what I do, the difference is enormous. If you're doing simple single-file edits, maybe less so.
The same routing serves knowledge work. The content engine researches, drafts in a calibrated voice, validates against 397 AI patterns, and repurposes finished pieces for each platform. /html turns any request into a single self-contained HTML file: report, slide deck, prototype, data viz, diagram. Non-engineers who try the toolkit consistently name the HTML artifacts as the thing they love. No code, no setup beyond the installer.
Changes to the toolkit itself ship with evidence. New skills get blind A/B tests against a no-skill baseline before merge. Routing and writing-standard decisions carry measured verdicts; PHILOSOPHY.md cites the numbers. Experiments that lost go into the negative-results registry, what-didnt-work.md; the registry now covers routing reversals, unvalidated A/B citations, and disabled lint rules alongside the original program refutations.
The automated nightly evolution loop (/evolve, writes to evolution-reports/) ran regularly through mid-May 2026. It is currently dormant; recent evidence has come from manual PRs instead.
git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git ~/vexjoy-agent
cd ~/vexjoy-agent
./install.sh
Links into ~/.claude/ and mirrors into ~/.codex/, ~/.factory/, ~/.reasonix/ — each mirror only when that runtime is detected (its command on PATH or its home dir already exists). The installer asks symlink (live updates via git pull) or copy (stable snapshot).
Want only part of the toolkit? Run ./install.sh --configure to pick which skills, agents, and hooks install, or copy .local.example/profile.yaml to .local/profile.yaml and edit. No profile file = full install, unchanged behavior. Credit: @thomasvan. Details: .local.example/README.md.
| CLI | Entry Point |
|---|---|
| Claude Code | /do |
| Codex | $do |
| Factory | /do |
| Reasonix | /do |
Full setup: docs/start-here.md
Mirrors agents, skills, and supported hooks into ~/.codex/. The original six-hook allowlist was correct for Codex v0.114, when tool hooks only intercepted Bash. Current support requires Codex v0.144.1+ and classifies the 74 Claude hook registrations as 26 native, 35 adapter-backed, and 13 unsupported (61 supported). These are registration counts, not unique hook files. The installer also preserves explicit per-subagent model routing for GPT-5.6 Sol by setting the MultiAgent V2 compatibility keys documented in openai/codex#31814.
Codex now exposes apply_patch to tool hooks. VexJoy's adapter converts each patch operation into the Write/Edit payload expected by existing guards, but it cannot intercept writes performed through unified_exec, unmatched MCP tools, WebSearch, or other unsupported tool paths. PreCompact and Stop adapters also receive less telemetry than Claude Code: Codex does not provide Claude's conversation_history or session_data. This is expanded compatibility, not full Claude parity.
After install or any hook-definition change, run /hooks in Codex and review the new definitions before trusting them. Codex hash-trusts hook commands and skips changed, unreviewed definitions.
Gemini CLI support removed (deprecated upstream, transitioned to Antigravity CLI); Antigravity support pending CLI maturity. Per Google's transition announcement, Gemini CLI stops serving requests on 2026-06-18 for Google AI Pro / Ultra and free Gemini Code Assist for individuals. Gemini API integrations (image-gen backends, sprite pipeline, GEMINI_API_KEY) are unaffected and stay in the toolkit.
If a prior install mirrored into ~/.gemini/, remove the stale mirrors with:
rm -rf ~/.gemini/skills ~/.gemini/agents ~/.gemini/hooks ~/.gemini/scripts ~/.gemini/antigravity/plugins/vexjoy-agent
Mirrors agents (as "droids"), skills, and all hooks into ~/.factory/. Hook config merges into ~/.factory/settings.json with paths rewritten.
Mirrors skills, scripts, and the allowlisted hooks (scripts/reasonix-hooks-allowlist.txt) into ~/.reasonix/ (no agent or custom-command surface, so neither is installed; the /do router rides in as a skill). Reasonix fires only 4 events (PreToolUse, PostToolUse, UserPromptSubmit, Stop), so only hooks for those events are allowlisted. Hook config is written to the hooks key of ~/.reasonix/settings.json in Reasonix's native flat shape (one entry per hook, match regex over the tool name); the generator builds absolute python3 commands, so no path rewrite is applied. MCP/model/permissions in ~/.reasonix/config.json are user-owned and left untouched.
The toolkit supplies its own routing, domain knowledge, methodology, and enforcement. The default system prompt duplicates most of that.
claude --system-prompt "."
Strips built-in tool-use instructions. The toolkit's agents, skills, hooks, and CLAUDE.md provide equivalent coverage.
| Layer | Count | Does |
|---|---|---|
| Agents | 44 | Domain knowledge: idiom tables, failure mode catalogs, error-to-fix mappings |
| Skills | 122 | Phased methodology with gates. Can't skip steps. Each phase has exit criteria requiring evidence. |
| Hooks | 78 | Fire on lifecycle events. Block incomplete work. Zero LLM cost. |
| Scripts | 136 | Determinism: test runners, linters, validators. No LLM judgment. |
Full skill catalog: docs/skills.md.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SKILL.md │
│ ┌─ Frontmatter ─────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ triggers, pairs_with, success-criteria │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ Reference Loading Table (conditional imports) │
│ Phased Instructions (numbered, with gates) │
│ Verification (evidence requirements) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
A game built entirely by Claude Code using these agents, skills, and pipelines:
I just want to use it Install, learn /do, done.
I do knowledge work Writing, research, data analysis, moderation, HTML artifacts. No code.
I'm a developer Architecture, extension points, adding agents and skills.
I'm an AI power user Routing tables, pipelines, hooks, telemetry DB.
I'm an AI agent Machine-dense inventory. Tables, paths, schemas.
I'm on LinkedIn 🚀 Thought leadership. Agree? 👇
Full design philosophy: PHILOSOPHY.md
One report-only script surfaces upkeep work; it prints a digest and never edits, deletes, or blocks.
python3 scripts/stale-skill-scan.py --top 20 ranks stale skills and agents as pruning candidates. Run it quarterly; see docs/deprecation-template.md.Scheduled work follows the same boundary as everything else: judgment uses agents; repeatable plumbing uses scripts.
| Need | Use |
|---|---|
| Run a deterministic command on a schedule | scripts/agent-scheduler.py with runner: "command" |
| Run an agent judgment on a schedule, webhook, or file change | scripts/agent-scheduler.py with the default runner: "claude" |
| Install or remove a user crontab entry safely | scripts/crontab-manager.py |
| Audit shell cron reliability | cron-automation |
| Keep one interactive objective moving until criteria verify | objective-loop |
See CONTRIBUTING.md.
MIT. See LICENSE.
name: codebase-analyzer
promoted_to: codebase-overview
description: "Statistical rule discovery from Go codebase patterns."
user-invocable: false
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Bash
- Grep
- Glob
- Edit
- Task
context: fork
routing:
triggers:
- "analyze codebase"
- "discover patterns"
- "style vector"
- "code cartographer"
- "pattern frequency"
- "structural metrics"
category: analysis
pairs_with:
- codebase-overview
- go-patternsStatistical rule discovery through measurement of Go codebases. Python scripts count patterns to avoid LLM training bias, then statistics are interpreted to derive confidence-scored rules. The core principle is Measure First, Interpret Second -- what IS in the code is the local standard, not what an LLM thinks "should be" there.
Load these files when the corresponding signals appear:
| Signal | Load |
|---|---|
| Understanding the three lenses (Consistency, Signature, Idiom) | references/three-lenses.md |
| Worked examples, phase banners, error catalog, reconciliation matrix | references/phase-details.md |
| Full 100-metric catalog across 25 categories | references/metrics-catalog.md |
| Additional real-world analysis workflows | references/examples.md |
| Signal | Load These Files | Why |
|---|---|---|
| worked analyses: single Go service, multi-repo comparison, pattern adoption and evolution tracking | examples.md | Loads detailed guidance from examples.md. |
| computing the 100 metrics across 25 categories | metrics-catalog.md | Loads detailed guidance from metrics-catalog.md. |
| phase banners, reconciliation matrix, rule format | phase-details.md | Loads detailed guidance from phase-details.md. |
| understanding the measure-don't-read statistical approach | three-lenses.md | Loads detailed guidance from three-lenses.md. |
Goal: Validate target and select analyzer variant.
Read and follow the repository's CLAUDE.md before doing anything else -- project instructions override default behaviors.
Step 1: Validate the target
Step 2: Select cartographer variant
| Variant | Script | Metrics | Use When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omni (recommended) | cartographer_omni.py | 100 across 25 categories | Full codebase profiling |
| Basic | cartographer.py | ~15 categories | Quick pattern overview |
| Ultimate | cartographer_ultimate.py | 6 focused categories | Performance pattern detection |
Step 3: Verify environment
See references/phase-details.md for the CONFIGURE banner template.
Gate: Target directory exists, contains 50+ Go files, variant selected. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Run statistical analysis scripts. Pure measurement -- no interpretation yet.
This phase is strictly mechanical. Scripts count and measure; keep interpretation separate from data collection. Combining measurement with interpretation introduces LLM training bias -- the model reports what "should be" instead of what IS. Run scripts first, interpret the numbers second, always as separate steps.
Automatically filter vendor/, testdata/, and generated code (files with "Code generated by..." markers) to avoid polluting statistics with external patterns.
Step 1: Execute the cartographer
python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/cartographer_omni.py /path/to/go/repo
# Or for quick overview: python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/cartographer.py /path/to/go/repo
Always run the cartographer scripts for measurement; reserve LLM interpretation for Phase 3. When an LLM sees return err it may report "not wrapping errors properly" even if that IS the local standard. The scripts produce deterministic, reproducible counts; the LLM's role begins at interpretation in Phase 3.
Step 2: Verify output integrity
Step 3: Check for data quality issues
See references/phase-details.md for the MEASURE banner template.
Gate: Script completed without errors, JSON output is valid, file count is reasonable. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Derive rules from statistics. This is where LLM interpretation happens -- AFTER measurement is complete.
Report facts and show complete statistics rather than describing them. Report facts without editorializing about code quality -- the numbers speak for themselves.
Step 1: Review the three lenses
| Lens | Question | Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency (Frequency) | "How often do they use X?" | Imports, test frameworks, logging, modern features |
| Signature (Structure) | "How do they name/structure things?" | Constructors, receivers, parameter order, variables |
| Idiom (Implementation) | "How do they implement patterns?" | Error handling, control flow, context usage, defer |
For detailed lens explanations, see references/three-lenses.md.
Step 2: Extract rules by confidence
Only derive rules from patterns with sufficient consistency. Forcing rules from weak patterns causes false positives in reviews and may impose standards the team has not organically adopted.
| Confidence | Threshold | Action | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | >85% consistency | Extract as enforceable rule | "96% use err not e" -> MUST use err |
| MEDIUM | 70-85% consistency | Extract as recommendation | "78% guard clauses" -> SHOULD prefer guards |
| Below 70% | Not extracted as rule | Report as observation only | "55% single-letter receivers" -> No rule |
Step 3: Review Style Vector (Omni only)
Step 4: Cross-reference lenses
Gate: Rules extracted with evidence and confidence levels. Style Vector reviewed. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Produce actionable output artifacts.
Step 1: Save statistical report
cartography_data/{repo_name}_cartography.json
Step 2: Generate derived rules document
derived_rules/{repo_name}_rules.md
Rule and Style Vector formats, plus the DELIVER banner template, live in
references/phase-details.md.
Step 3: Summarize Style Vector (Omni only) — see phase-details.md
Step 4: Recommend next steps
Gate: JSON report saved, rules document generated, next steps documented. Analysis complete.
Load references/phase-details.md for:
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/three-lenses.md: Detailed explanation of the three analysis lenses${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples.md: Real-world analysis examples and workflows${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/metrics-catalog.md: Complete 100-metric catalog across 25 categories${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/phase-details.md: Phase banners, reconciliation matrix, examples, error handling
评论 (0)
暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!