Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索external-servicegithub未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计异常

analyze-plugin分析插件

Agent Skill

analyze-plugin 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

528

周安装

22

GitHub Stars

2

下载量

176
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:analyze-plugin(分析插件)
来源仓库:https://github.com/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills
仓库路径:skills/analyze-plugin
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills --skill analyze-plugin
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills --skill analyze-plugin

简介

对 Agent 插件和技能进行深度结构与内容分析以提取复用模式。

  • 适用于技能库持续改进,支持单插件或多插件批量分析。
  • 提取架构、接口和实现细节形成可复用的最佳实践。
  • 输出格式化的分析报告供团队参考和迭代使用。analyze-plugin 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 仅需 Python 3.8+ 和标准库,无外部依赖要求。

SKILL.md

Dependencies

This skill requires Python 3.8+ and standard library only. No external packages needed.

To install this skill's dependencies:

pip-compile ./requirements.in
pip install -r ./requirements.txt

See ../../requirements.txt for the dependency lockfile (currently empty — standard library only).


Plugin & Skill Analyzer

Perform deep structural and content analysis on agent plugins and skills. Extract reusable patterns that feed the virtuous cycle of continuous improvement.

Two Analysis Modes

Single Plugin Mode

Deep-dive into one plugin. Use when you want to fully understand a plugin's architecture.

Comparative Mode

Analyze multiple plugins side-by-side. Use when looking for common patterns across a collection.

Analysis Framework

Execute these phases sequentially. Do not skip phases.

Phase 0: Quick Compliance Pre-Check

Before deep analysis, run a rapid compliance scan to surface blockers:

Manifest check:

# plugin.json must be in .claude-plugin/ (not root)
ls .claude-plugin/plugin.json && jq . .claude-plugin/plugin.json
  • name present and kebab-case (no spaces, no uppercase)?
  • version follows semver (X.Y.Z) if present?
  • No unknown fields causing warnings?

Structure check:

  • Component dirs (commands/, agents/, skills/, hooks/) at plugin ROOT (not inside .claude-plugin/)?
  • All file names use kebab-case?
  • SKILL.md (not README.md) inside each skill directory?

Security scan:

# Hardcoded credentials
grep -rn "password\|api_key\|secret" --include="*.md" --include="*.json" --include="*.sh" .

# Hardcoded paths (should use ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT})
grep -rn "/Users/\|/home/" --include="*.json" --include="*.sh" .

Report Phase 0 findings before proceeding. If CRITICAL issues found (invalid JSON, hardcoded credentials, missing required fields), flag them prominently in the final report.

Phase 1: Inventory

Run the deterministic inventory script first:

python3 "scripts/inventory_plugin.py" --path <plugin-dir> --format json

If the script is unavailable, manually enumerate:

  1. Walk the directory tree
  2. Classify every file by type:

- SKILL.md → Skill definition - commands/*.md → Command definition - references/*.md → Reference material (progressive disclosure) - scripts/*.py → Executable scripts - README.md → Plugin documentation - plugin.json → Plugin manifest - *.json → Configuration (MCP, hooks, etc.) - *.yaml / *.yml → Pipeline/config data - *.html → Artifact templates - *.mmd → Architecture diagrams - Other → Assets/misc

  1. Record for each file: path, type, line count, byte size
  2. Output a structured inventory as a markdown checklist with one checkbox per file

Phase 2: Structure Analysis

Evaluate the plugin's architectural decisions:

DimensionWhat to Look For
LayoutHow are skills/commands/references organized? Flat vs nested?
Progressive DisclosureIs SKILL.md lean (<500 lines) with depth in references/?
Component RatiosSkills vs commands vs scripts — what's the balance?
Naming PatternsAre names descriptive? Follow kebab-case? Use gerund form?
README QualityDoes it have a file tree? Usage examples? Architecture diagram?
Standalone vs SuperchargedCan it work without MCP tools? What's enhanced with them?

Phase 3: Content Analysis

For each file, load the appropriate question set from references/analysis-questions-by-type.md and work through every checkbox. See the process diagram in analyze-plugin-flow.mmd for the full pipeline visualization.

For each SKILL.md, evaluate:

Frontmatter Quality:

  • Is the description written in third person?
  • Does it include specific trigger phrases?
  • Is it under 1024 characters?
  • Does it clearly state WHEN to trigger?

Body Structure:

  • Does it have a clear execution flow (numbered phases/steps)?
  • Are there decision trees or branching logic?
  • Does it use tables for structured information?
  • Are there output templates or format specifications?
  • Does it link to references/ for deep content?

Interaction Design:

  • Does it use guided discovery interviews before execution?
  • What question types are used? (open-ended, numbered options, yes/no, table-based comparisons)
  • Does it present smart defaults with override options?
  • Are there confirmation gates before expensive/irreversible operations?
  • Does it use recap-before-execute to verify understanding?
  • Does it offer numbered next-action menus after completion?
  • Does it negotiate output format with the user?
  • Are there inline progress indicators during multi-step workflows?

For Commands, evaluate:

  • Are they written as instructions FOR the agent (not documentation for users)?
  • Do they specify required arguments?
  • Do they reference MCP tools with full namespaces?

For Reference Files, evaluate:

  • Do they contain domain-specific deep knowledge?
  • Are they organized by topic/domain?
  • Do files >100 lines have a table of contents?

For Scripts, evaluate:

  • Are they Python-only (no.sh/.ps1)?
  • Do they have --help documentation?
  • Do they handle errors gracefully?
  • Are they cross-platform compatible?

Phase 4: Pattern Extraction

Identify instances of known patterns from references/pattern-catalog.md. Also watch for novel patterns not yet cataloged.

For each pattern found, document:

Pattern: [name]
Plugin: [where found]
File: [specific file]
Description: [how it's used here]
Quality: [exemplary / good / basic]
Reusability: [high / medium / low]
Confidence: [high (≥3 plugins) / medium (2) / low (1)]
Lifecycle: [proposed / validated / canonical / deprecated]

Before adding a new pattern, check the catalog's deduplication rules. If an existing pattern covers ≥80% of the behavior, update its frequency instead.

Key pattern categories to search for:

  1. Architectural Patterns — Standalone/supercharged, connector abstraction, meta-skills
  2. Execution Patterns — Phase-based workflows, decision trees, bootstrap/iteration modes
  3. Content Patterns — Severity frameworks, confidence scoring, priority tiers, checklists
  4. Output Patterns — HTML artifacts, structured tables, ASCII diagrams, template systems
  5. Knowledge Patterns — Progressive disclosure, dialect tables, domain references, tribal knowledge extraction
  6. Interaction Design Patterns — Discovery interviews, option menus, confirmation gates, smart defaults, recap-before-execute, output format negotiation, progress indicators

Phase 5: Anti-Pattern & Security Detection

Load the full check tables from references/security-checks.md.

Execution order:

  1. Run security checks FIRST (P0 — Critical severity items)
  2. Then run structural anti-pattern checks
  3. Apply contextual severity based on plugin type/complexity
  4. Flag any LLM-native attack vectors (skill impersonation, context poisoning, injection via references)

If inventory_plugin.py was run with --security, use its deterministic findings as ground truth.

Phase 6: Synthesis & Scoring

Load the maturity model and scoring rubric from references/maturity-model.md.

Steps:

  1. Assign maturity level (L1-L5)
  2. Score each of the 6 dimensions (1-5) using the weighted rubric
  3. Calculate overall score (weighted average, Scoring v2.0)
  4. Generate the summary report using the template
  5. For comparative mode, generate the Ecosystem Scorecard

Output

Generate a structured markdown report. For single plugins, output inline. For collections, create an artifact file with the full analysis.

Iteration Directory Isolation: All analysis reports must be saved into explicitly versioned and isolated outputs (e.g. analysis-reports/target-run-1/) to prevent destructive overrides on re-runs. Asynchronous Benchmark Metric Capture: Once the audit run completes, immediately log the resulting total_tokens and duration_ms to a timing.json file to calculate the cost of the deep-dive analysis.

Always end with Virtuous Cycle Recommendations: specific, actionable improvements for agent-plugin-analyzer (this plugin), agent-scaffolders, and agent-skill-open-specifications based on patterns discovered.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.67%
按下载量换算61

Claude

29.56%
按下载量换算52

Cursor

21.6%
按下载量换算38

Gemini CLI

9.58%
按下载量换算17

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills