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。
A model-agnostic agent-skills platform.
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
A model-agnostic agent-skills platform. The canonical layer is harness-free by construction; Claude Code is currently the verified-native harness. Other harnesses remain engineering candidates until their native-path integration is verified; source research alone is never presented as public support.
Version semantics: the release badge is this marketplace's display version. npm packages, including the
ccpiCLI and publishable plugins, retain their own package versions; they are intentionally not expected to equal the display version. The version-surface checker governs the display surfaces without rewriting package semver.
Inside Claude Code, one command installs the whole marketplace:
/plugin marketplace add jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins
Or use the CLI:
pnpm add -g @intentsolutionsio/ccpi
ccpi install devops-automation-pack
Browse the marketplace · Explore plugins · Download bundles
Killer Skill of the Week — no-ai-slop by Peter Yang
Strip AI slop from any draft — named-pattern edits that keep the writer's real voice
no-ai-slop does two jobs and refuses to fake a third. In Edit mode it makes the minimum effective edit — cutting throat-clearing, weak verbs, and abstract nouns while deliberately preserving the writer's cadence, bluntness, humor, and honest admissions, so a rough draft still sounds like the same person afterward. In Detect mode it names each AI-slop pattern it finds, quotes the offending line, and gives the fix in a few words — and pointedly does NOT score the draft or guess whether an AI wrote it. That restraint is the whole point: AI detectors guess; named patterns are evidence the reader can check. MIT-licensed, single focused skill, actively maintained by Peter Yang.
"AI detectors guess. Named patterns are evidence the user can check." — Peter Yang
Grade: A | Week of July 22, 2026 (W30) | View on GitHub
Previous picks: tonone, mnemos, databricks-pack, kobiton-automate, skyvern, code-cleanup, web-analytics, token-optimizer, executive-assistant-skills, skill-creator, cursor-pack, crypto-portfolio-tracker. See all at tonsofskills.com.
Every number below names the cohort it counts and the command that reproduces it — an unlabeled count is how a corpus ends up with five contradictory answers to "how many skills."
| Count | Cohort | Reproduce with |
|---|---|---|
| 442 | catalog plugins (catalog-entry cohort) | node scripts/generate-readme-toc.mjs over marketplace.extended.json |
| 3,067 | marketplace-visible skills (distinct) | node -e "import('./scripts/corpus-resolver.mjs').then(m=>console.log(m.resolveCorpus('marketplace-visible').length))" |
| 347 | agent definitions in plugins | git ls-files 'plugins/**' | grep '/agents/.*\.md' |
| 19 | plugin categories | ls -d plugins/*/ |
Across 396 published packages in the claude-code-plugins namespace. Updated daily by GitHub Actions.
| Window | All packages | Established (>30d) |
|---|---|---|
| Last 24 hours | 962 | 962 |
| Last 7 days | 2,920 | 2,916 |
| Last 30 days | 12,868 | 12,779 |
"Established" excludes packages first published within the last 30 days, so a bulk-publish event doesn't dominate the headline.
Top 10 by last 30 days:
Last refreshed 2026-08-19T03:03:05.709Z.
Five real questions, five doors — each resolves to a live, generated surface, never a hand-maintained list:
The 19 categories below link into the live marketplace. Plugin counts are the catalog-entry cohort — regenerated from marketplace.extended.json by this generator; the catalog itself lives on tonsofskills.com, never in this file (§ 6A of the platform blueprint).
| Category | Plugins | |
|---|---|---|
| 🤖 | AI & Machine Learning | 36 |
| 🎭 | AI Agents & Agency | 10 |
| 🔌 | API Development | 26 |
| 💼 | Business Tools | 6 |
| 👥 | Community | 21 |
| ₿ | Crypto & Web3 | 27 |
| 💾 | Database | 26 |
| 🎨 | Design | 2 |
| 🔧 | DevOps & Infrastructure | 36 |
| 📚 | Examples & Templates | 5 |
| 🧩 | MCP Servers | 16 |
| 📦 | Packages | 5 |
| ⚡ | Performance | 25 |
| ✅ | Productivity | 30 |
| 🎁 | SaaS Skill Packs | 106 |
| 🔐 | Security | 27 |
| ✨ | Skill Enhancers | 9 |
| 🧪 | Testing | 28 |
| 📁 | Analytics | 1 |
Four artifact classes live in this repository, distinguished on sight and never blurred — provenance is a truth requirement here, not a UX nicety:
| Class | What it is | How the reader can tell |
|---|---|---|
| Canonical skill | First-party, harness-free, the source of truth | No .source.json in its plugin directory |
| Generated adapter | A thin, machine-produced harness projection | Lives under a generated path with a "generated — do not edit" header |
| First-party package | An Intent Solutions distribution (npm, cowork zip) | @intentsolutionsio scope, IS-authored license |
| Upstream mirror | Somebody else's work, hosted mirror-by-default | .source.json present — upstream author, license, and pinned commit recorded |
Not yet certified. The certification program (tiers T0–T4 with retained, hash-matched evidence) is a later epic of the platform blueprint; until its report exists, no artifact on this surface claims a tier. This line is rendered from the absence of certification-report.json — honestly, not cosmetically.
Start with the contribution guide, then the intake and review standards every submission passes through:
External plugins are hosted mirror-by-default: the contributor's repository stays the source of truth, every mirrored source is pinned in a content lockfile, and upstream credit — author, license, resolved commit — is recorded in the mirror itself. Improvements flow by upstreaming to the author's repository, never by silently editing the mirror. The full decision record is the external-sync model.
MIT for the repository scaffolding and first-party tooling; each plugin carries its own license in its manifest, and mirrored plugins keep their upstream license verbatim.
name: cursor-custom-prompts
description: 'Create effective custom prompts for Cursor AI using project rules, prompt
engineering patterns, and
reusable templates. Triggers on "cursor prompts", "prompt engineering cursor", "better
cursor prompts",
"cursor instructions", "cursor prompt templates".
'
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash(cmd:*)
version: 1.18.0
license: MIT
author: Jeremy Longshore <jeremy@intentsolutions.io>
tags:
- saas
- cursor
- cursor-custom
compatibility: Designed for Claude CodeCreate reusable prompts that encode approved engineering practice without injecting secrets, bypassing repository controls, or replacing human review.
| Condition | Safe response |
|---|---|
| Prompt generates over-broad changes | Narrow its file/task constraints and require a diff review. |
| Prompt conflicts with repository rules | Treat rules as authoritative and update/remove the prompt. |
| Prompt includes sensitive data | Remove it, follow exposure procedure, and replace with sanitized placeholders. |
For a test-writing prompt, specify the exact target module, existing test framework, failure behavior, and command to run. Review the generated test diff and reject it if it changes production code or hard-codes secrets.
Create effective prompts for Cursor AI. Covers prompt engineering fundamentals, reusable templates stored in project rules, and advanced techniques for consistent, high-quality code generation.
A well-structured Cursor prompt has four parts:
1. CONTEXT → @-mentions pointing to relevant code
2. TASK → What you want done (specific, actionable)
3. CONSTRAINTS → Rules, patterns, limitations
4. FORMAT → How the output should look
@src/api/users/route.ts @src/types/user.ts ← CONTEXT
Create a new API endpoint for updating user profiles. ← TASK
Constraints: ← CONSTRAINTS
- Follow the same pattern as the users route
- Use Zod for input validation
- Return 400 for invalid input, 404 for missing user
- Only allow updating: name, email, avatarUrl
Return the endpoint code and the Zod schema as ← FORMAT
separate code blocks.
@[existing-similar-feature] @[relevant-types]
Implement [feature name] following the pattern in [reference file].
Requirements:
- [requirement 1]
- [requirement 2]
- [requirement 3]
Constraints:
- Same error handling pattern as [reference]
- Same file structure as [reference]
- Include TypeScript types for all public interfaces
@[buggy-file] @Lint Errors
Bug: [describe the incorrect behavior]
Expected: [describe correct behavior]
Steps to reproduce: [1, 2, 3]
The error message is: [paste error]
Find the root cause and suggest a fix. Do not change
the public API surface.
@[file-to-review]
Review this code for:
1. Logic errors or edge cases
2. Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, auth bypass)
3. Performance issues (N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders)
4. TypeScript type safety (any casts, missing generics)
5. Naming and readability
List issues as: [severity] [line/area] [description] [suggestion]
@[source-file] @[existing-test-file]
Generate tests for [function/class name] covering:
- Happy path with valid inputs
- Edge cases: empty input, null, undefined, max values
- Error cases: invalid input, missing required fields
- Async behavior: success and failure scenarios
Follow the same test structure as [existing-test-file].
Use [vitest/jest/pytest] assertions.
@[file-to-refactor]
Refactor this code to [goal]:
- [specific change 1]
- [specific change 2]
Do NOT change:
- The public API (function signatures, return types)
- The test behavior (existing tests must still pass)
- External imports
Convert frequently used prompts into .cursor/rules/ for automatic injection:
# .cursor/rules/code-generation.mdc
---
description: "Standards for AI-generated code"
globs: ""
alwaysApply: true
---
When generating code, always:
1. Add JSDoc comments on all exported functions
2. Include error handling (never let functions throw unhandled)
3. Use named exports (never default exports)
4. Add `import type` for type-only imports
5. Prefer const arrow functions for pure utilities
6. Use discriminated unions over boolean flags
When generating TypeScript:
- Strict mode: no `any`, no `as` casts without justification
- Prefer `unknown` over `any` for unknown types
- Use `satisfies` operator for type narrowing
- Infer types where TypeScript can; annotate where it cannot
# .cursor/rules/test-patterns.mdc
---
description: "Test generation standards"
globs: "**/*.test.ts,**/*.spec.ts"
alwaysApply: false
---
When generating tests:
- Use describe/it blocks with readable descriptions
- Arrange/Act/Assert pattern (AAA)
- One assertion per test (prefer multiple focused tests)
- Mock external dependencies, not internal utilities
- Use factory functions for test data (not inline objects)
- Name test files: {module}.test.ts colocated with source
Force the AI to reason before generating:
@src/services/billing.service.ts
I need to add proration logic for subscription upgrades.
Before writing code, first:
1. List the variables involved (current plan, new plan, billing cycle)
2. Show the proration formula with a concrete example
3. Identify edge cases (upgrade on last day, downgrade, free trial)
Then implement based on your analysis.
Provide examples of what you want:
Convert these function signatures to the Result pattern:
Example input:
async function getUser(id: string): Promise<User>
Example output:
async function getUser(id: string): Promise<Result<User, NotFoundError>>
Now convert these:
- async function createOrder(input: CreateOrderInput): Promise<Order>
- async function deleteAccount(userId: string): Promise<void>
- async function sendEmail(to: string, body: string): Promise<boolean>
Tell the AI what NOT to do:
Create a React form component for user registration.
DO NOT:
- Use class components
- Use any CSS-in-JS library
- Add client-side validation (server validates)
- Use controlled inputs for every field (use react-hook-form)
- Import anything not already in package.json
Build up complexity in steps:
Turn 1: "Create a basic Express route for GET /api/products"
Turn 2: "Add pagination with page and limit query params"
Turn 3: "Add filtering by category and price range"
Turn 4: "Add sorting by any field with asc/desc direction"
Turn 5: "Add input validation and comprehensive error responses"
Each turn adds one layer. The AI maintains context from previous turns.
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| "Make it better" | Too vague | "Add error handling for network failures" |
| "Rewrite everything" | Scope too large | "Refactor the validation logic in lines 40-80" |
| No context files | AI guesses patterns | Always add @Files references |
| Wall of text prompt | AI misses key points | Use numbered lists and headers |
| "Do what you think is best" | AI makes assumptions | Specify requirements explicitly |
.cursor/rules/ to encode team prompt standards so all developers get consistent behavior
评论 (0)
暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!