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: joy-check
description: "Validate content framing on joy-grievance spectrum."
user-invocable: false
argument-hint: "[--fix] [--strict] [--mode writing|instruction] <file>"
command: /joy-check
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Edit
- Bash
- Grep
- Glob
routing:
triggers:
- joy check
- check framing
- tone check
- negative framing
- joy validation
- too negative
- reframe positively
- positive framing check
- instruction framing
pairs_with:
- voice-writer
- voice-validator
- skill-creator
complexity: Simple
category: contentValidate content framing using mode-specific rubrics. Two modes:
By default the skill evaluates each paragraph/instruction independently, produces a score (0-100), and suggests reframes without modifying content. Optional flags: --fix rewrites flagged items in place and re-verifies; --strict fails on any item below 60; --mode writing|instruction overrides auto-detection.
This skill checks framing, not topic and not voice. Voice fidelity belongs to voice-validator, AI pattern detection belongs to the private de-AI editor skill.
| Signal | Load These Files | Why |
|---|---|---|
| scoring instruction files (agents, skills, pipelines): positive-framing rubric | instruction-rubric.md | Loads detailed guidance from instruction-rubric.md. |
| scoring human-facing prose (blog posts, emails, docs): joy-grievance rubric | writing-rubric.md | Loads detailed guidance from writing-rubric.md. |
Goal: Determine which rubric to apply based on file location or explicit flag.
Auto-detection rules (in priority order):
--mode writing|instruction flag → use that modeagents/*.md → instructionskills/*/SKILL.md → instructionskills/workflow/references/*.md → instructionCLAUDE.md or README.md → instructionLoad the rubric: Read references/{mode}-rubric.md for the scoring criteria, patterns, and examples relevant to this mode.
GATE: Mode determined, rubric loaded. Proceed to Phase 1.
Goal: Use regex scanning as a fast gate to catch obvious patterns before spending LLM tokens on semantic analysis.
For writing mode: Run the regex-based scanner for grievance patterns:
python3 ~/.claude/scripts/scan-negative-framing.py [file]
For instruction mode: Run a grep scan for prohibition patterns:
grep -nE 'NEVER|do NOT|must NOT|FORBIDDEN' [file]
grep -nE "^-?\s*Don't|^-?\s*Avoid|^#+.*Anti-[Pp]attern|^#+.*Avoid" [file]
Handle hits: Report findings with suggested reframes from the loaded rubric. If --fix mode is active, apply reframes and re-run to confirm clean.
GATE: Regex/grep scan returns zero hits. Resolve obvious patterns before proceeding to Phase 2 — mechanical fixes come first.
Goal: Read the content and evaluate each item against the loaded rubric using LLM semantic understanding.
Step 1: Read the content
Read the full file. Skip frontmatter (YAML between --- markers) and code blocks.
Step 2: Evaluate against the rubric
Apply the scoring dimensions from the loaded rubric (references/{mode}-rubric.md). Each rubric defines its own PASS/FAIL dimensions, subtle patterns to detect, and contextual exceptions.
For writing mode: Evaluate through the joy-grievance lens. Watch for the subtle patterns described in references/writing-rubric.md (defensive disclaimers, accumulative grievance, passive-aggressive factuality, reluctant generosity).
For instruction mode: Evaluate through the positive-negative lens. Check each instruction against the patterns table in references/instruction-rubric.md. Apply contextual exceptions — subordinate negatives attached to positive instructions are PASS, as are negatives in code examples, writing samples, and technical terms.
Step 3: Score each item
Apply the scoring scale from the loaded rubric. For any item scoring in the lower tiers (CAUTION/GRIEVANCE for writing, NEGATIVE-LEANING/PROHIBITION-HEAVY for instruction), draft a specific reframe suggestion that preserves the substance while shifting the framing.
When an item seems subtle enough to question flagging — that is precisely when flagging matters most. Subtle patterns are what the regex/grep pre-filter misses, making them the primary purpose of this LLM analysis phase.
GATE: All items analyzed and scored. Reframe suggestions drafted for all flagged items. Proceed to Phase 3.
Goal: Produce a structured report with scores, findings, and reframe suggestions.
Step 1: Calculate overall score
Average all item scores. Pass criteria come from the loaded rubric:
Step 2: Output the report
JOY CHECK: [file]
Mode: [writing|instruction]
Score: [0-100]
Status: PASS / FAIL
Items:
[writing mode]
P1 (L10-12): JOY [85] -- explorer framing, curiosity
P3 (L18-22): CAUTION [40] -- "confused" leans defensive
-> Reframe: Focus on what you learned from the confusion
[instruction mode]
L33: NEGATIVE [20] -- "NEVER edit code directly"
-> Rewrite: "Route all code modifications to domain agents"
L45: PASS [90] -- "Create feature branches for all changes"
L78: PASS [85] -- "Credentials stay in .env files, never in code" (subordinate negative OK)
Overall: [summary of framing arc]
Step 3: Handle fix mode
If --fix mode is active:
GATE: Report produced. If --fix, all rewrites applied and re-verified. Joy check complete.
This skill integrates with content and toolkit pipelines:
Writing pipeline (human-facing content):
CONTENT --> voice-validator --> scan-ai-patterns --> joy-check --mode writing --> de-AI edit (private skill)
Instruction pipeline (agent/skill/pipeline creation and modification):
SKILL.md --> joy-check --mode instruction --> fix flagged patterns --> re-verify
Auto-invocation points:
skill-creator pipeline: Call the Skill tool with joy-check. Use instruction mode after generating a new skill.agent-upgrade pipeline: Call the Skill tool with joy-check. Use instruction mode after modifying an agent.voice-writer: Call the Skill tool with joy-check. Use writing mode during validation.doc-pipeline: Call the Skill tool with joy-check. Use instruction mode for toolkit documentation.The joy-check can be invoked standalone via /joy-check [file] (auto-detects mode) or with explicit --mode writing|instruction.
Cause: Path incorrect or file does not exist Solution:
ls -la [path]Glob **/*.mdCause: scan-negative-framing.py script missing or Python error
Solution:
ls scripts/scan-negative-framing.pypython3 --version (requires 3.10+)Cause: Content is fundamentally framed through grievance -- not recoverable with paragraph-level reframes Solution:
Cause: Rewritten paragraphs keep introducing new CAUTION/GRIEVANCE patterns, often because the underlying premise is grievance-based Solution:
references/writing-rubric.md — Joy-grievance spectrum, subtle patterns, scoring, examples (writing mode)references/instruction-rubric.md — Positive framing rules, patterns to flag, rewrite strategies, examples (instruction mode)scan-negative-framing.py — Regex pre-filter for grievance patterns (writing mode, Phase 1)voice-validator — Voice fidelity validation (different concern)~/private-skills)voice-writer — Content pipeline that invokes joy-check as a validation phaseskill-creator — Skill creation pipeline that invokes joy-check in instruction mode
评论 (0)
暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!