Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

nuwa-skill女娲技能

Agent Skill

nuwa-skill 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 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

36,141

周安装

1,462

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

11,345
OpenClaw

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

MIT-0

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:nuwa-skill(女娲技能)
来源仓库:https://github.com/alchaincyf/nuwa-skill
安装命令:
openclaw skills install nuwa-skill
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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install nuwa-skill

简介

女娲技能可根据任意名字自动研究并生成可运行的视角技能。

  • 适合需要快速获取人物背景、思维框架或专业视角的场景。
  • 通过多智能体并行研究结合心理模型,输出结构化分析结果。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围与是否涉及联网或文件操作。
  • 建议核对仓库维护状态及实际功能边界后再使用。nuwa-skill 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

name
nuwa-skill
description
|
Trigger
create a perspective skill for X", "distill X", "nuwa", "make a skill for X", "X's thinking framework

Nuwa · Skill Creation Engine (女娲 · Skill造人术)

"The parts you can't write into a SKILL.md — that's your real moat." But the parts you CAN write are already powerful enough.

Core Philosophy

Nuwa doesn't copy people — it extracts thinking frameworks.

A good perspective skill is a runnable cognitive operating system:

  • What mental models does this person use to see the world? (lenses)
  • What decision heuristics do they use to make judgments? (rules of thumb)
  • How do they express themselves? (DNA)
  • What do they absolutely refuse to do? (anti-patterns)
  • What can't this skill do? (honesty boundaries)

Key distinction: Capture HOW they think, not WHAT they said.


Execution Flow

Phase 0: Clarify Requirements (30 seconds)

After receiving a name, confirm:

  1. Who is this person/topic: Ensure correct understanding
  2. Focus direction (optional): Full portrait vs. focused on one dimension?
  3. Purpose: Thinking advisor? Decision reference? Role-play?
  4. New or update: Does a skill for this person already exist?

If the user just says "do X" with no extra info → default to full portrait + thinking advisor, proceed directly.

Phase 0.5: Create Skill Directory

Execute immediately after confirmation, before research:

[person-name]-perspective/
├── SKILL.md                          # Final deliverable
└── references/
    ├── research/                     # Each agent's research output (must save)
    │   ├── 01-writings.md            # Writings & systematic thinking
    │   ├── 02-conversations.md       # Long conversations & improvisational thinking
    │   ├── 03-expression-dna.md      # Fragment expression & style DNA
    │   ├── 04-external-views.md      # External perspectives & criticism
    │   ├── 05-decisions.md           # Decision records & actions
    │   └── 06-timeline.md            # Person timeline
    └── sources/                      # Downloaded primary materials
        ├── books/
        ├── transcripts/
        └── articles/

Key rule: Every subagent MUST save research results to its corresponding md file. Research without files is research that never happened. The skill must be self-contained — copying the entire skill directory should work independently.


Phase 1: Multi-Source Research (Parallel Agent Swarm)

Launch 6 parallel subagents, each responsible for a different information dimension.

6 Agent Assignments

AgentSearch TargetKey ExtractionsOutput File
1 WritingsBooks, essays, papers, newslettersCore arguments recurring ≥3 times = true belief, coined terms, reading lists01-writings.md
2 ConversationsPodcasts, long videos, AMAs, deep interviewsResponses under pressure, impromptu analogies, changed positions, refused questions02-conversations.md
3 ExpressionTwitter/X, Weibo, short postsHigh-frequency sentence patterns, controversial stances, humor style, public debates03-expression-dna.md
4 ExternalOthers' analysis, book reviews, criticism, biographiesExternally observed patterns, criticism & controversies, peer comparisons04-external-views.md
5 DecisionsMajor decisions, turning points, controversial actionsDecision context & logic, post-hoc reflections, say-do consistency05-decisions.md
6 TimelineBirth/debut to presentKey milestones, thought turning points, last 12 months (prevent staleness)06-timeline.md

Hard Requirements for Each Agent

  • Research results MUST be saved to references/research/0X-xxx.md
  • Note source and credibility (primary > secondary > inference)
  • Distinguish "they said" vs "others said about them" vs "I inferred"
  • When contradictions are found, preserve them — don't smooth them over

Source Priority

Source TypeWhat It RevealsWeight
Their own writingsSystematic thinkingHighest
Long conversations/interviewsImprovisational thinking processHighest
Actual decision recordsReal behavior vs. claimsHighest
Social mediaExpression style, instant reactionsMedium
Others' evaluationsExternal perspective, blind spotsMedium
Second-hand accountsReference but needs verificationLow

Source Blocklist (Always Exclude)

For Chinese figures, exclude: Zhihu (知乎), WeChat public accounts (微信公众号), Baidu Baike/Zhidao. Only accept authoritative Chinese media: 36Kr, GeekPark, LatePost, Caixin, Yicai, Huxiu, SSPAI, etc.

Agent Failure Handling

  • Timeout/no results: Don't wait, continue. Mark "insufficient information" in Phase 2
  • Source scarcity (<10 usable sources): Alert user at Phase 0.5, lower expectations, increase honesty boundaries
  • Agent result conflicts: Preserve contradictions — contradictions are valuable signals

Key rule: Better to generate an honest 60-point skill with clearly marked limitations than a seemingly perfect 90-point skill that fabricates information.

Phase 1.5: Research Review Checkpoint

After all agents complete, pause and display a research quality summary:

┌──────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ Agent            │ Sources  │ Key Findings              │
├──────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ 1 Writings       │ 8        │ Core thesis: ...          │
│ 2 Conversations  │ 5        │ Position change: ...      │
│ 3 Expression     │ 120      │ High-freq: "skin in..."   │
│ 4 External       │ 6        │ Main criticism: ...       │
│ 5 Decisions      │ 4        │ Key decision: ...         │
│ 6 Timeline       │ Complete │ Latest: March 2026...     │
├──────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Contradictions   │ 2        │ Agent1 says X, Agent4 Y   │
│ Info gaps        │ None     │                           │
└──────────────────┴──────────┴──────────────────────────┘

User confirms quality → proceed to Phase 2. User wants more on some dimension → supplement before continuing.


Phase 2: Framework Extraction (Synthesis)

2.1 Mental Model Extraction (3-7)

Identification criteria:

  • Cross-domain recurrence: Same framework appears in 2+ different domains → real mental model
  • Has coined terminology: Named this thinking pattern → core belief
  • Predictive power: Can predict their stance on new questions

Each model records: Name, one-line description, source evidence (≥2 scenarios), application method, limitations

2.2 Decision Heuristics Extraction (5-10)

= Quick rules this person uses when making judgments. Expressible as "if X, then Y" with specific case support.

2.3 Expression DNA Analysis

DimensionExtraction
Sentence preferencesLong/short, question/statement, analogy density
Vocabulary traitsHigh-frequency words, proprietary terms, taboo words
RhythmConclusion-first or setup-first, transition style
Humor styleSarcasm/self-deprecation/absurdist/dry/none
Certainty expression"I'm not sure" type or "obviously" type
Citation habitsWho they cite, what type

2.4 Values & Anti-Patterns

  • Values: 3-5 ranked core values
  • Anti-patterns: Behaviors/thinking this person explicitly opposes
  • Contradictions & tensions: Internal conflicts between values (source of depth)

2.5 Intellectual Genealogy

Who influenced them → Them → Who they influenced → Position on the intellectual map

2.6 Honesty Boundaries

Limitations that MUST be explicitly stated:

  • Cannot predict reactions to entirely novel problems
  • Cannot replace this person's creativity and intuition
  • Public expression vs. private thoughts may differ
  • Information cutoff at research date

Phase 3: Skill Construction

Read references/skill-template.md for the standard template, fill in Phase 2 results.

Output: SKILL.md (main file) + research source index appended at the end.


Phase 4: Quality Validation

After generating the skill, use a subagent for 3 independent tests:

4.1 Known Test (Sanity Check)

Pick 3 questions this person has publicly answered, spawn subagent with the new skill to answer, compare with actual stance.

  • Direction matches → model works
  • Deviation → trace back and adjust mental model weights

4.2 Edge Test

Pick 1 question they haven't publicly discussed but is relevant, use skill to infer.

  • Expected: "Based on models X and Y, possibly... but uncertain"
  • Should NOT be absolutely certain

4.3 Voice Test

Write a 100-word analysis using the skill, judge:

  • Has this person's expression characteristics?
  • Not generic AI platitudes?
  • Not a patchwork of original quotes?

4.4 Pass Criteria

CheckPassFail Signal
Mental model count3-7, each with source evidence<3 or >10
Each model's limitationsClear failure conditions statedOnly upsides listed
Expression DNA recognitionCan identify who in 100 wordsReads like generic ChatGPT
Honesty boundaries≥3 specific limitationsOnly "can't replace the person"
Internal tensions≥2 contradiction pairsViews highly consistent (too fake)
Primary source ratio>50%Mainly second-hand accounts

Pass → deliver. Fail → mark weak points, iterate back to Phase 2.

Show validation results to user for confirmation before completion.


Updating Existing Skills

When user says "update X's skill" or "X has new developments":

  1. Read existing SKILL.md, note last research date
  2. Only launch Agent 2 (latest conversations) + Agent 5 (latest decisions) + Agent 6 (timeline update)
  3. Compare new info with existing content — strengthen, update, or add
  4. Update SKILL.md incrementally, don't rewrite entirely

Taste Guidelines

Good Skill vs Bad Skill

Good SkillBad Skill
Can handle new problemsCan only repeat old quotes
Has internal contradictionsAll views highly consistent (fake)
Acknowledges uncertaintyHas answers for everything
3-7 core models, deep and sharp20 vague "principles"
Expression has recognitionReads like ChatGPT
Explicitly states limitationsImplies it can replace the person

Research Taste

  1. Primary > Secondary: Their own words > others' accounts
  2. Long-form > Quotes: A 3000-word essay reveals more thinking structure than 50 tweets
  3. Controversy > Consensus: Most disputed views reveal the most uniqueness
  4. Change > Fixed: Changed positions carry more information than consistent ones
  5. Behavior > Words: Actual decisions > public statements

Extraction Taste

  1. Less is more: 3 deep mental models > 15 shallow principles
  2. Contradictions are features, not bugs: Preserve internal tensions
  3. Don't beautify: Blind spots and limitations are part of the personality
  4. Falsifiable: Each mental model should be verifiable or refutable by specific cases

Never Do

  • Fabricate things this person never said
  • Package generic wisdom as their "unique insight"
  • Ignore negative evaluations and controversies
  • Imply this skill equals the person themselves
  • Force-generate when information is insufficient

Special Scenarios

Living Person vs Historical Figure

  • Living: Watch for timeliness, mark cutoff date, suggest periodic updates
  • Historical: More stable materials but possible biographical bias, cross-source verification

Topic Skill vs Person Skill

Input is a topic (e.g., "value investing") not a person:

  • Phase 1 searches for core practitioners and theorists of the topic
  • Phase 2 extracts domain consensus + school-of-thought divergences
  • Output centers on the topic, citing multiple person perspectives

Final Note

Nuwa doesn't create people — it creates mirrors.

A good perspective skill lets you see your own problems through someone else's eyes. Not to imitate them, but to expand your own thinking boundaries.

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

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

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

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

OpenClaw

83.83%
按下载量换算9,511

安全审计

VirusTotal

未展示

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

通过

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