Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

ln-913-community-debaterln 913 社区辩手

Agent Skill

ln-913-community-debater 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

2,470

周安装

105

GitHub Stars

441

下载量

865
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-913-community-debater(ln 913 社区辩手)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-913-community-debater
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-913-community-debater
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-913-community-debater

简介

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。

  • 适用于研究检索类任务,可结合来源仓库和原始 README 核验具体用法。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需确认权限范围和安装路径。
  • 建议在安装前确认维护状态、是否会触发联网或文件读写操作。
  • ln-913-community-debater 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

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}.

ln-913-community-debater

Type: L3 Worker (standalone) Category: 9XX Community Engagement Launches structured debate discussions in GitHub Discussions for decisions that benefit from community input.


Phase 0: GitHub Discovery

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/community_github_discovery.md

Execute the discovery protocol. Extract:

  • {owner}/{repo} for URLs and codebase context
  • repo.id for GraphQL mutation
  • categories["Ideas"] for RFC/Proposal discussions
  • categories["Polls"] for Prioritization polls
  • Verify required categories exist

Load strategy: check docs/community_engagement_strategy.md in target project, fallback to shared/references/community_strategy_template.md. Extract Section 3 (Debate Triggers) and Section 1 (Decision Matrix).

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/community_discussion_formatting.md MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/humanizer_checklist.md


Phase 1: Define the Topic

If $ARGUMENTS provided, use as the topic seed. Otherwise, ask the user what they want to debate.

Gather context:

  1. Read strategy Section 3 -- verify this qualifies as a debate
  2. Grep the codebase for files related to the topic
  3. Read relevant SKILL.md files, docs, or shared references
  4. Identify existing patterns that the proposal might change

Phase 2: Classify Debate Type

TypePrefixCategoryWhen to use
Maintainer RFC -- design mostly done, seeking validation[RFC]IdeasEnd of design process, soft announcement
Community RFC -- early stage, genuinely open to alternatives[RFC]IdeasBeginning of design, kickstart discussion
Proposal -- new feature or restructuring[Proposal]IdeasConcrete idea with use case
Workflow Change -- pipeline, task flow, or conventions[RFC]IdeasAffects multiple areas or user workflows
Prioritization -- what to build next, feature ranking[Poll]PollsMultiple options, need community vote

If type is Prioritization, switch to Polls flow (Phase 4).


Phase 3: Compose RFC Discussion

Use the RFC Structure Pattern from discussion_formatting.md (loaded in Phase 0).

Skill-specific additions beyond the shared pattern:

  • Add ## Unresolved Details section after Open Questions — implementation details not yet decided, to be resolved during development
  • Add ## Decision Criteria section — how the decision will be made (metrics, feedback threshold)
  • Minimum 2 alternatives in the Alternatives table

Phase 4: Compose Poll (for Prioritization type)

GitHub Discussions Polls are created via UI only. Instead, compose a reaction-based voting discussion:

## {Topic}

{1-2 sentence context}

**Vote by reacting to the options below** (each option is posted as a separate comment -- use :+1: to vote).

### Context
{Why this decision matters now}

After creating the discussion, post each option as a separate comment for reaction-based voting.


Phase 5: Fact-Check

Before presenting to user, verify every verifiable claim in the draft:

  1. File paths & links -- verify each linked file exists: ls {path}. Remove or fix broken links.
  2. Code references -- verify mentioned functions/patterns exist: grep -r "{name}".
  3. Alternatives accuracy -- re-read source files to confirm the Alternatives table accurately describes tradeoffs. No hallucinated pros/cons.
  4. Names -- verify skill names, directory names, config keys match actual repo state.
  5. Humanizer audit -- run the audit protocol from humanizer_checklist.md. If 3+ AI patterns found, rewrite flagged sections.

Gate: If any check fails, fix the draft before proceeding.


Phase 6: Review and Publish

Present the composed title + body to the user. Wait for explicit approval before publishing.

After approval, publish via GraphQL using discovery context:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($title: String!, $body: String!, $repoId: ID!, $catId: ID!) {
    createDiscussion(input: {
      repositoryId: $repoId,
      categoryId: $catId,
      title: $title,
      body: $body
    }) {
      discussion { url id }
    }
  }
' -f title="TITLE_HERE" -f body="BODY_HERE" -f repoId="{repo.id}" -f catId="{categories.Ideas or categories.Polls}"

For Polls, after creating the discussion, post each option as a comment:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($discussionId: ID!, $body: String!) {
    addDiscussionComment(input: {
      discussionId: $discussionId,
      body: $body
    }) {
      comment { url }
    }
  }
' -f discussionId="DISCUSSION_NODE_ID" -f body="**Option N:** {description}"

Report the discussion URL to the user.


Rules

  • Always present the full composed text for user approval before publishing
  • Never publish without explicit user confirmation
  • Title: descriptive, under 80 chars, prefixed with [RFC], [Proposal], or [Poll]
  • Body: factual, not persuasive -- present options neutrally
  • Include links to relevant code/docs in the repository
  • Set a decision timeline when applicable
  • Minimum 2 alternatives in the Alternatives table
  • Tone: "We're considering X. Here are the tradeoffs. What's your take?"

Definition of Done

  • Topic defined with codebase context gathered
  • Debate type classified (RFC/Proposal/Workflow/Prioritization)
  • RFC or poll composed with minimum 2 alternatives
  • Fact-checked (links, code references, alternatives accuracy, names)
  • Humanizer audit passed (< 3 AI patterns)
  • User approved final draft
  • Published via GraphQL mutation, URL reported

Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-13

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

37.71%
按下载量换算326

Claude

30.38%
按下载量换算263

Cursor

18.4%
按下载量换算159

Gemini CLI

10.71%
按下载量换算93

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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