スキル一覧に戻る

conscientiousness

pjt222
更新日 2 days ago
3 閲覧
17
2
17
GitHubで表示
その他ai

について

このスキルは、作業を体系的に検証し、完全性を確認し、結果が元の要求と一致することを確認してからタスクを完了としてマークします。これは、回答が「十分良い」と感じられたとき、複雑な多段階操作の後、または急ぎすぎる傾向に対抗するために使用するように設計されています。AI自身が約束に対して自身の出力をレビューすることで、手抜きを防ぎ、徹底性を強制します。

クイックインストール

Claude Code

推奨
メイン
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
プラグインコマンド代替
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git クローン代替
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/conscientiousness

このコマンドをClaude Codeにコピー&ペーストしてスキルをインストールします

ドキュメント

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.

  1. Re-read user's original req carefully → not interpreted version, actual words
  2. List every explicit req mentioned
  3. 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?
  4. Note any acceptance criteria from user
  5. 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          |                  |
+---------------------+------------------+------------------+
  1. 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
  2. Mark each: Done (full complete), Partial (started, incomplete), Missing (not addressed)
  3. 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.

  1. 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?
  2. Code: would this survive code review? Obvious improvements?
  3. Docs: accurate, clear, free of errs?
  4. 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?

  1. Clarity: User can understand w/o re-reading multi times?
  2. Organization: Res structured logically? Related items grouped?
  3. Conciseness: Unnecessary padding / repetition?
  4. Actionability: User knows what to do next?
  5. 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 achieved
  • heal — subsystem assessment overlaps w/ self-verification; conscientiousness focuses on deliverable quality
  • vishnu-bhaga — preservation of working state complements conscientiousness in maintaining quality
  • observe — sustained neutral observation supports verification process
  • intrinsic — genuine engagement (not compliance) drives thorough exec naturally

GitHub リポジトリ

pjt222/agent-almanac
パス: i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/conscientiousness
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams

関連スキル

llamaguard

その他

LlamaGuardは、暴力やヘイトスピーチなど6つの安全性カテゴリーにおいて、LLMの入力と出力をモデレートするMetaの70-80億パラメータモデルです。94〜95%の精度を提供し、vLLM、Hugging Face、Amazon SageMakerを使用してデプロイ可能です。このスキルを使用して、AIアプリケーションにコンテンツフィルタリングと安全策を簡単に統合できます。

スキルを見る

cost-optimization

その他

このClaudeスキルは、リソースの適正サイジング、タグ付け戦略、支出分析を通じて、開発者がクラウドコストを最適化することを支援します。AWS、Azure、GCPにわたるクラウド支出の削減とコストガバナンスの実施のためのフレームワークを提供します。インフラコストの分析、リソースの適正サイジング、または予算制約への対応が必要な際にご利用ください。

スキルを見る

quantizing-models-bitsandbytes

その他

このスキルは、bitsandbytesを使用してLLMを8ビットまたは4ビット精度に量子化し、精度の低下を最小限に抑えつつ50〜75%のメモリ削減を実現します。限られたGPUメモリでより大規模なモデルを実行したり、推論を高速化するのに理想的で、INT8、NF4、FP4などのフォーマットをサポートしています。HuggingFace Transformersと統合され、QLoRAトレーニングや8ビットオプティマイザーを可能にします。

スキルを見る

dispatching-parallel-agents

その他

このClaudeスキルは、複数のエージェントを配備し、3つ以上の独立した問題を並行して調査・修正します。共有状態や依存関係がなく解決可能な、無関係な障害が発生するシナリオ向けに設計されています。中核となる機能は並列問題解決であり、効率を最大化するために独立した問題領域ごとに1つのエージェントを割り当てます。

スキルを見る