SKILL·62B458

conscientiousness

pjt222
更新于 1 month ago
9 次查看
26
3
26
在 GitHub 上查看
其他ai

关于

This skill systematically verifies work, checks for completeness, and ensures results match the original request before marking a task as done. It is designed for use when a response feels "good enough," after complex multi-step operations, or to counter patterns of rushing. It enforces thoroughness by having the AI review its own output against commitments, preventing corner-cutting.

快速安装

Claude Code

推荐
主要方式
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
插件命令备选方式
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git 克隆备选方式
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/conscientiousness

在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能

技能文档

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 仓库

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

Frequently asked questions

What is the conscientiousness skill?

conscientiousness is a Claude Skill by pjt222. Skills package instructions and resources that Claude loads on demand, so Claude can perform conscientiousness-related tasks without extra prompting.

How do I install conscientiousness?

Use the install commands on this page: add conscientiousness to Claude Code as a plugin, or clone its repository into your skills directory, then restart Claude so it picks up the skill.

What category does conscientiousness belong to?

conscientiousness is in the Other category, tagged ai.

Is conscientiousness free to use?

Yes. conscientiousness is listed on AIMCP and free to install. It runs inside Claude, so no separate service account is required to use the skill itself.

相关推荐技能

llamaguard
其他

LlamaGuard是Meta推出的7-8B参数内容审核模型,专门用于过滤LLM的输入和输出内容。它能检测六大安全风险类别(暴力/仇恨、性内容、武器、违禁品、自残、犯罪计划),准确率达94-95%。开发者可通过HuggingFace、vLLM或Sagemaker快速部署,并能与NeMo Guardrails集成实现自动化安全防护。

查看技能
cost-optimization
其他

这个Claude Skill帮助开发者优化云成本,通过资源调整、标记策略和预留实例来降低AWS、Azure和GCP的开支。它适用于减少云支出、分析基础设施成本或实施成本治理策略的场景。关键功能包括提供成本可视化、资源规模调整指导和定价模型优化建议。

查看技能
sports-betting-analyzer
其他

该Skill为开发者提供体育博彩数据分析工具,可分析盘口、大小球和特殊投注,识别价值投注机会。它整合历史数据和情景统计,生成包含时间戳的结构化Markdown报告。适用于需要快速获取博彩市场洞察的娱乐或教育类应用开发。

查看技能
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
其他

这个Skill使用bitsandbytes库量化大语言模型,能在GPU内存有限时通过8位或4位量化减少50-75%内存占用,同时保持精度损失最小。它支持INT8、NF4、FP4等多种量化格式,可与HuggingFace Transformers无缝集成,适用于需要部署更大模型或加速推理的场景。还提供QLoRA训练和8位优化器支持,让开发者能轻松实现高效模型压缩。

查看技能