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: pair-programming
description: "Collaborative coding with enforced micro-steps and user-paced control."
user-invocable: false
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Edit
- Bash
- Grep
- Glob
routing:
triggers:
- "pair program"
- "collaborative coding"
- "micro-steps"
- "step by step coding"
- "one change at a time"
- "show each change"
- "walk me through"
- "interactive coding"
category: process
pairs_with:
- test-driven-development
- subagent-driven-developmentCollaborative coding through the Announce-Show-Wait-Apply-Verify micro-step protocol. The user controls pace, sees every planned change as a diff, and confirms before any file is modified. Works with any domain agent as executor.
This skill runs in the main session (not context: fork) because every step requires an interactive user gate — forking would execute autonomously and break the confirmation protocol.
Maintain step count, current speed setting, and remaining plan throughout the session so you can display "Step N of ~M" with each announcement. The user needs this orientation to stay engaged with the collaborative flow.
For each step in the plan, execute this 5-step protocol:
1. Announce — Describe the next change in 1-2 sentences: what will change and why. Keep announcements brief (1-2 sentences) before showing code immediately because the user came to code together, not to read an essay. Long explanations break flow and reduce collaborative momentum.
2. Show — Display the planned code as a diff or code block. The current step size limit (default 15 lines, max 50 lines) exists because users cannot make informed decisions about changes they have not seen. Every change gets shown—even trivial ones, which are fast to approve—so you and the user stay synchronized. Never exceed the limit: split large changes into sub-steps instead.
3. Wait — Stop and let the user respond with a control command. Do not proceed until you receive an explicit command—assuming the user will say "ok" and applying preemptively turns this into autonomous mode with a running commentary, violating the micro-step protocol.
| Command | Action |
|---|---|
ok / yes / y | Apply current step, proceed to next |
no / n | Skip this step, propose alternative approach |
faster | Double step size (max 50 lines) |
slower | Halve step size (min 5 lines) |
skip | Skip current step entirely, move to next |
plan | Show remaining steps overview |
done | End pair session, run final verification |
4. Apply — Execute the change only after receiving ok/yes/y. Never apply changes without explicit confirmation—doing so turns collaborative pair programming into autonomous mode with a running commentary.
5. Verify — Run relevant checks (lint, type check, test) and report results in one sentence. Catching errors immediately keeps the codebase green and prevents error accumulation across steps, ensuring every change is validated before moving forward.
If a step exceeds the current size limit, split it into sub-steps (Step 3a, 3b, 3c). Announce the split: "This change is ~40 lines. I will split it into 3 sub-steps." This splitting exists because the user must be able to approve or reject individual logical changes—bundling multiple logical changes into one step to avoid splitting defeats the purpose of the micro-step protocol.
Sessions start at 15 lines per step, balancing progress with reviewability. Apply speed changes immediately when the user requests them and acknowledge the new setting because ignoring pace signals breaks trust and the user's sense of control. The user must feel they are the one steering the session.
| Setting | Lines Per Step | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Slowest | 5 | Multiple slower commands |
| Slow | 7 | slower from default |
| Default | 15 | Session start |
| Fast | 30 | faster from default |
| Fastest | 50 | Multiple faster commands (hard cap) |
When the user says faster or slower, acknowledge the change: "Speed adjusted to ~N lines per step."
When the user says done or all steps are complete: run final verification (lint, type check, full test suite), show a summary (steps completed, steps skipped, files modified), and report verification results. This end-of-session gate ensures the codebase is left in a valid state.
Standard Session — User says: "Pair program a function that parses CSV lines in Go"
ok — apply — verifyok — apply — verifySpeed Adjustment — User says faster after Step 2
slower later, drop to ~15Session End — User says done after Step 4 of 6
go vet, go test ./...Cause: User wants speed, not collaboration. Solution: Acknowledge the preference and offer to switch. Say: "Would you like to switch to autonomous mode? I can implement the remaining steps without confirmation." If they accept, drop the micro-step protocol and implement normally.
Cause: Applied change introduces a lint error, type error, or test failure. Solution: Announce the fix as the next micro-step. Show the fix diff, wait for confirmation, apply, re-verify. Do not silently fix verification failures regardless of cause—silent fixes violate the protocol.
Cause: A logical change requires more lines than the current limit. Solution: Split into sub-steps (Step 3a, 3b, 3c). Each sub-step stays within the limit. Announce the split: "This change is ~40 lines. I will split it into 3 sub-steps."
评论 (0)
暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!