conscientiousness
Über
Diese Fähigkeit überprüft systematisch die Arbeit, prüft auf Vollständigkeit und stellt sicher, dass die Ergebnisse mit der ursprünglichen Anfrage übereinstimmen, bevor eine Aufgabe als erledigt markiert wird. Sie ist für den Einsatz konzipiert, wenn eine Antwort "gut genug" erscheint, nach komplexen mehrstufigen Operationen oder um Muster der Eile zu unterbinden. Sie erzwingt Gründlichkeit, indem die KI ihre eigene Ausgabe anhand der zugesagten Vorgaben überprüft, um Abkürzungen zu verhindern.
Schnellinstallation
Claude Code
Empfohlennpx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/conscientiousnessKopieren Sie diesen Befehl und fügen Sie ihn in Claude Code ein, um diese Fähigkeit zu installieren
Dokumentation
Conscientiousness
Systematic thoroughness + diligence → ensure completeness, verify results, follow through every commitment, finish tasks to standard deserved.
Use When
- Before marking task complete → final verification pass
- Res feels "good enough" but task deserves better
- Post complex multi-step op where steps may have drifted
- User req has multi parts + each needs verification
- Before submitting code, docs, or any deliverable for user review
- Self-monitoring detects pattern of cutting corners / rushing
In
- Required: Task / deliverable to verify (from conv context)
- Optional: Original user req (compare vs. what delivered)
- Optional: Any checklist / acceptance criteria from user
- Optional: Prior commitments during session (things promised but not checked)
Do
Step 1: Reconstruct Full Commitment
Before checking work → re-establish exactly what was committed.
- Re-read user's original req carefully → not interpreted version, actual words
- List every explicit req mentioned
- List every implicit commitment made during session:
- "I'll also update the tests" — was this done?
- "Let me fix that too" — was this completed?
- "I'll check for edge cases" — were they checked?
- Note any acceptance criteria from user
- Compare commitment list vs. what actually delivered
→ Full commitment list — explicit reqs + implicit promises — w/ prelim match vs. deliverables.
If err: Original req no longer in context (compressed) → reconstruct from what remains + acknowledge gaps to user.
Step 2: Verify Completeness
Check every committed item addressed.
Completeness Matrix:
+---------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Commitment | Status | Evidence |
+---------------------+------------------+------------------+
| [Requirement 1] | Done / Partial / | [How verified] |
| | Missing | |
+---------------------+------------------+------------------+
| [Requirement 2] | Done / Partial / | [How verified] |
| | Missing | |
+---------------------+------------------+------------------+
| [Promise 1] | Done / Partial / | [How verified] |
| | Missing | |
+---------------------+------------------+------------------+
- Each item → valid. w/ evidence, not memory, actual verification:
- Code changes: re-read file to confirm change exists
- Test results: re-run or ref actual out
- Docs: re-read to confirm accuracy
- Mark each: Done (full complete), Partial (started, incomplete), Missing (not addressed)
- Partial + Missing → note what remains
→ Every commitment has verified status. No item unchecked.
If err: Verification reveals missed items → address immediately vs. note for later. Conscientiousness = completing now, not intending to complete.
Step 3: Verify Correctness
Completeness necessary but not sufficient → what was done must also be right.
- Each completed item → check:
- Accuracy: Does it do what it should? Values correct?
- Consistency: Aligns w/ rest of work? No contradictions?
- Edge cases: Boundary conditions considered?
- Integration: Works w/ surrounding context?
- Code: would this survive code review? Obvious improvements?
- Docs: accurate, clear, free of errs?
- Multi-step processes: out of each step correctly feeds next?
→ Each deliverable complete + correct. Errs caught before user sees them.
If err: Errs found → fix immediately. Don't present work w/ known errs, even if minor.
Step 4: Verify Presentation
Final check: deliverable presented in way serving user?
- Clarity: User can understand w/o re-reading multi times?
- Organization: Res structured logically? Related items grouped?
- Conciseness: Unnecessary padding / repetition?
- Actionability: User knows what to do next?
- Honesty: Limitations / caveats clearly stated?
→ Deliverable complete, correct, well-presented.
If err: Presentation poor despite correct content → restructure. Good work poorly presented = conscientiousness failure.
Check
- Original req re-read (not recalled from memory)
- Every explicit req verified w/ evidence
- Every implicit promise tracked + verified
- Correctness checked beyond mere completeness
- Edge cases considered where relevant
- Deliverable clearly presented + actionable
Traps
- Verification theater: Going through motions of checking w/o actually re-reading / re-verifying. Check must use evidence, not memory.
- Partial conscientiousness: Checking main deliverable but ignoring side commitments ("I'll also..."). Every promise counts.
- Perfectionism masquerading as diligence: Endless polishing delays delivery. Conscientiousness = meeting committed standard, not exceeding indefinitely.
- Conscientiousness fatigue: Becoming less thorough as session progresses. Last task deserves same diligence as first.
- Skip for simple tasks: Assuming simple tasks don't need verification. Simple tasks w/ errs more embarrassing than complex w/ errs.
→
honesty-humility— conscientiousness verifies completeness; honesty-humility ensures transparent reporting of what was + wasn't achievedheal— subsystem assessment overlaps w/ self-verification; conscientiousness focuses on deliverable qualityvishnu-bhaga— preservation of working state complements conscientiousness in maintaining qualityobserve— sustained neutral observation supports verification processintrinsic— genuine engagement (not compliance) drives thorough exec naturally
GitHub Repository
Verwandte Skills
llamaguard
AndereLlamaGuard ist Metas 7-8B-Parameter-Modell zur Moderation von LLM-Eingaben und -Ausgaben in sechs Sicherheitskategorien wie Gewalt und Hassrede. Es bietet eine Genauigkeit von 94-95 % und kann mit vLLM, Hugging Face oder Amazon SageMaker eingesetzt werden. Nutzen Sie diese Skill, um Inhaltsfilterung und Sicherheitsguardrails einfach in Ihre KI-Anwendungen zu integrieren.
cost-optimization
AndereDiese Claude Skill unterstützt Entwickler bei der Optimierung von Cloud-Kosten durch Ressourcen-Dimensionierung, Tagging-Strategien und Ausgabenanalysen. Sie bietet einen Rahmen zur Senkung von Cloud-Ausgaben und zur Implementierung von Kosten-Governance für AWS, Azure und GCP. Nutzen Sie sie, wenn Sie Infrastrukturkosten analysieren, Ressourcen richtig dimensionieren oder Budgetvorgaben einhalten müssen.
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
AndereDiese Fähigkeit quantisiert LLMs auf 8-Bit- oder 4-Bit-Präzision mittels bitsandbytes und erreicht dabei eine Speicherreduzierung von 50–75 % bei minimalem Genauigkeitsverlust. Sie ist ideal für den Betrieb größerer Modelle mit begrenztem GPU-Speicher oder zur Beschleunigung von Inferenzvorgängen und unterstützt Formate wie INT8, NF4 und FP4. Die Fähigkeit integriert sich in HuggingFace Transformers und ermöglicht QLoRA-Training sowie 8-Bit-Optimierer.
dispatching-parallel-agents
AndereDiese Claude-Fähigkeit verteilt mehrere Agenten, um drei oder mehr unabhängige Probleme gleichzeitig zu untersuchen und zu beheben. Sie ist für Szenarien konzipiert, die unabhängige Fehler umfassen, die ohne gemeinsamen Zustand oder Abhängigkeiten gelöst werden können. Die Kernfähigkeit ist die parallele Problemlösung, bei der pro unabhängigem Problembereich ein Agent zugewiesen wird, um die Effizienz zu maximieren.
