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提醒

ln-612-semantic-content-auditorln 612 语义内容审核员

Agent Skill

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

总安装

3,856

周安装

156

GitHub Stars

441

下载量

1,211
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:ln-612-semantic-content-auditor(ln 612 语义内容审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-612-semantic-content-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-612-semantic-content-auditor
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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-612-semantic-content-auditor

简介

用于文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合提炼结构和统一术语。

  • 适用于需要补齐章节、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档的场景。
  • 使用时保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不把未确认信息写成确定结论。
  • 涉及对外文案时需控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

SKILL.md

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.

Semantic Content Auditor (L3 Worker)

Type: L3 Worker

Specialized worker auditing semantic fitness of project documentation.

Purpose & Scope

  • Verify document content matches stated SCOPE and declared document kind
  • Check content aligns with project goals (value contribution)
  • Return structured findings to coordinator with severity, location, fix suggestions
  • Does NOT verify facts against codebase

Target Documents

Called ONLY for project documents (not reference/tasks):

DocumentVerification Focus
AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.mdEntry instructions stay scoped, navigable, and free of off-topic content
docs/README.mdNavigation scope correct, descriptions relevant
docs/documentation_standards.mdStandards applicable to this project type
docs/principles.mdPrinciples relevant to project architecture
docs/project/requirements.mdRequirements scope complete, no stale items
docs/project/architecture.mdArchitecture scope covers all layers
docs/project/tech_stack.mdStack scope matches project reality
docs/project/api_spec.mdAPI scope covers all endpoint groups
docs/project/database_schema.mdSchema scope covers all entities
docs/project/design_guidelines.mdDesign scope covers active components
docs/project/infrastructure.mdInfrastructure scope covers all deployment targets
docs/project/runbook.mdRunbook scope covers setup + operations

Excluded: docs/tasks/, docs/reference/, docs/presentation/, tests/

Inputs

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md, shared/references/docs_quality_contract.md, and shared/references/markdown_read_protocol.md. MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/mcp_tool_preferences.md and shared/references/mcp_integration_patterns.md

Receives from coordinator per invocation:

FieldDescription
doc_pathPath to document to audit (e.g., docs/project/architecture.md)
output_dirDirectory for report output (from contextStore)
project_rootProject root path
tech_stackDetected technology stack

hex-line is optional for this doc-only worker. Use it to outline large markdown files when available; otherwise continue with built-in Read/Grep/Glob/Bash and do not block on MCP availability.

Workflow

Phase 1: Header and Contract Extraction

  1. Read document header and top sections first
  2. Parse:

- SCOPE - DOC_KIND - DOC_ROLE - READ_WHEN - SKIP_WHEN - PRIMARY_SOURCES

  1. If no SCOPE tag, infer from document type
  2. Infer expected DOC_KIND from the shared contract when missing
  3. Record stated purpose and routing boundaries

Phase 2: Doc-Kind-Aware Semantic Audit

Judge the document according to its kind:

DOC_KINDMain semantic question
indexDoes it route efficiently and avoid deep factual overload?
referenceIs it precise, complete enough, and easy to lookup?
how-toIs the procedure actionable and sequenced correctly?
explanationDoes it build the right mental model and rationale?
recordDoes it preserve the decision trace and consequences?

Analyze the document against stated scope and kind:

CheckFinding Type
Section not serving scopeOFF_TOPIC
Scope aspect not coveredMISSING_COVERAGE
Excessive detail beyond scopeSCOPE_CREEP
Content duplicated elsewhereSSOT_VIOLATION

Agent instruction file checks (applies when the audited file is AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md):

CheckFinding TypeSeverityRecommendation
Style / formatting rules (indentation, quote style, trailing whitespace, naming conventions)NOT_A_LINTERWARNMove to Biome, Prettier, Ruff, EditorConfig, or a Claude Code Stop hook. Instruction files are loaded into every session and cost tokens against the ~100-imperative budget; deterministic tools do this for free.
Conditional / non-universal rules at the root (when working on src/api/..., if modifying the billing service, for the Z service)NON_UNIVERSAL_RULEWARNMove to .claude/rules/*.md with a paths: frontmatter filter (Anthropic built-in path scoping). Non-universal rules bias Claude Code toward ignoring the entire file via the <system-reminder> wrapper.
Self-Improvement Loop rule pointing at a manual tasks/lessons.mdOBSOLETE_PATTERNWARNDelete. Claude Code's built-in auto memory at ~/.claude/projects/<project>/memory/ already does this; a parallel hand-maintained convention wastes context.

All three WARN only — they require human judgment (intentional style rule? conditional scope that's actually project-wide?). Cite shared/references/agent_instructions_writing_guide.md in every finding.

Read strategy:

  • header + top sections first
  • read only the body sections needed for judgment
  • read the full file only when the semantic judgment is unsafe without it

Scoring:

  • 10/10: All content serves scope, scope fully covered
  • 8-9/10: Minor off-topic content or small gaps
  • 6-7/10: Some sections not aligned, partial coverage
  • 4-5/10: Significant misalignment, major gaps
  • 1-3/10: Document does not serve its stated purpose

Phase 3: SCORING & REPORT

Calculate final score based on scope alignment:

overall_score = weighted_average(coverage, relevance, focus)

Coverage: how completely the scope is addressed. Relevance: how much content serves the scope. Focus: absence of off-topic content.

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write JSON summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md. In managed mode the caller passes both runId and summaryArtifactPath; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.

Write report to {output_dir}/ln-612--{doc-slug}.md where doc-slug is derived from document filename (e.g., architecture, tech_stack, agents_md).

With category: "Semantic Content" and checks: scope_alignment, not_a_linter, non_universal_rule, obsolete_pattern (the last three fire only on AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md targets).

Return summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md.

When summaryArtifactPath is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.

Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-612--architecture.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Read progressively: Use section-first reading; full reads only when needed for safe judgment
  • Scope inference: If no SCOPE tag, use document filename to infer expected scope
  • Doc-kind aware: Judge by document purpose, not one generic rubric
  • No false positives: Better to miss an issue than report incorrectly
  • Location precision: Always include line number for findings
  • Actionable fixes: Every finding must have concrete fix suggestion
  • No fact-checking: Do NOT verify paths, versions, endpoints against code
  • Shared class registry: Document boundaries come from docs_quality_contract.md; do not invent alternate scope rules per file

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Header contract extracted or inferred
  • Content-scope alignment analyzed (OFF_TOPIC, MISSING_COVERAGE, SCOPE_CREEP, SSOT_VIOLATION)
  • Semantic judgment applied according to DOC_KIND
  • Score calculated using penalty algorithm
  • Report written to {output_dir}/ln-612--{doc-slug}.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary written per contract

Reference Files

  • Audit output schema: shared/references/audit_output_schema.md

Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-01

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

34.71%
按下载量换算420

Claude

28.74%
按下载量换算348

Cursor

19.43%
按下载量换算235

Gemini CLI

9.83%
按下载量换算119

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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