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: socratic-debugging
description: "Question-only debugging: guide users to find root causes themselves."
user-invocable: false
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Grep
- Glob
- Bash
routing:
triggers:
- "guide debugging"
- "question-based"
- "teach debugging"
- "ask me questions"
- "help me think through"
- "guide me"
- "coaching mode"
- "teach me to find it"
category: process
pairs_with:
- forensics
- systematic-code-reviewThis skill teaches debugging through structured inquiry rather than providing answers, implementing the Socratic Method pattern. You ask questions that lead the user to discover root causes themselves, building lasting investigative skills rather than offering direct solutions.
Guide the user to discover the answer themselves. The user must arrive at the root cause themselves -- giving answers defeats the learning objective. Always read relevant code first using Read/Grep/Glob before formulating questions. Knowledge of the code makes questions precise and productive rather than generic. Follow the 9-phase progression without skipping: jumping to hypothesis questions without establishing symptoms and state leads to guesswork instead of systematic discovery.
Begin with symptoms regardless of how specific the user's description is. Even detailed reports contain unstated assumptions. Ask one question at a time and wait for the response. Multiple questions overwhelm and dilute focus. Mirror the user's terminology (variable names, function names, domain terms) in your questions to reduce friction and show engagement. When the user discovers something, acknowledge it before asking the next question -- silent progression feels like interrogation. After 12 questions without progress toward root cause, trigger escalation to systematic-debugging as a clean handoff.
Follow these phases in order. Each phase builds evidence for the next.
| Phase | Purpose | Example Questions |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Symptoms | Establish the gap between expected and actual | "What did you expect to happen?" / "What actually happened instead?" |
| 2. Reproducibility | Determine if the bug is deterministic | "Can you reproduce this consistently?" / "What conditions trigger it?" |
| 3. Prior Attempts | Focus on fresh approaches | "What have you already tried?" / "What happened when you tried that?" |
| 4. Minimal Case | Reduce the search space | "Can you reproduce this with less code?" / "What is the smallest failing input?" |
| 5. Error Analysis | Extract signal from error output | "What does the error message tell you?" / "Which part of the message is most informative?" |
| 6. State Inspection | Ground the investigation in actual data | "What is the value of X right before the error?" / "What state do you see at that point?" |
| 7. Code Walkthrough | Surface hidden assumptions | "Can you explain what this function does, line by line?" / "What happens at this branch?" |
| 8. Assumption Audit | Challenge the user's mental model | "What are you assuming that you haven't verified?" / "Could that value ever be null here?" |
| 9. Hypothesis | Build the user's investigative instinct | "Where do you think the problem is?" / "Why there specifically?" |
Questions may contain subtle directional hints. The goal is discovery, not suffering. A good hint directs attention without revealing the answer: asking what a specific value is right before a failure. A bad hint is a leading question that contains the answer: asking whether a specific value could be null. The line: open-ended questions that narrow focus are hints. Leading questions that contain the answer are violations.
After 12 questions without progress, offer cleanly:
"We have been exploring this for a while. Would you like to switch to direct debugging mode? I can investigate and solve this systematically instead of through questions."
If the user accepts, use this action: Call the Skill tool with workflow. Run the systematic-debugging pipeline with a summary of what has been established:
Cause: User wants direct help, not guided discovery
Solution: Offer to switch modes cleanly. Say: "Would you like to switch to direct debugging mode? I can solve this for you instead." If they accept, use this action: Call the Skill tool with workflow. Run the systematic-debugging pipeline.
Cause: Too many questions without visible progress, or questions feel generic Solution: Acknowledge the frustration. Offer escalation. If they want to continue, read more code and ask sharper, more targeted questions. Generic questions indicate you haven't read the code deeply enough.
Cause: A typo, missing import, or simple syntax error visible in the source Solution: Still ask Phase 1, but make the question very pointed -- narrow enough that the user will see the answer immediately. Follow phase progression; pointed questions stay within the Socratic framework.
This skill teaches debugging through structured inquiry within these constraints: Maintain the Socratic method by guiding toward answers; always read code before questioning (generic questions signal incomplete code understanding); follow phase progression to build evidence rather than guessing; escalate cleanly at 12 questions without progress rather than continuing to frustrate the user; use the user's terminology to maintain engagement; acknowledge discoveries to keep the dialogue feeling collaborative rather than like interrogation.
评论 (0)
暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!