Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索操作浏览器github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

source-driven-development源驱动开发

Agent Skill

source-driven-development 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

25,872

周安装

1,064

GitHub Stars

25,876

下载量

9,064
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:source-driven-development(源驱动开发)
来源仓库:https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/source-driven-development
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills --skill source-driven-development
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/addyosmani/agent-skills --skill source-driven-development

简介

用于基于现有代码库驱动新功能的分析与实现规划。

  • 适合从源码中提取需求、接口定义和业务逻辑。
  • 使用时需提供目标仓库或模块路径。
  • 安装前建议确认宿主对 Git 操作的权限支持。
  • 避免脱离实际代码凭空设计架构。source-driven-development 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Source-Driven Development

Overview

Every framework-specific code decision must be backed by official documentation. Don't implement from memory — verify, cite, and let the user see your sources. Training data goes stale, APIs get deprecated, best practices evolve. This skill ensures the user gets code they can trust because every pattern traces back to an authoritative source they can check.

When to Use

  • The user wants code that follows current best practices for a given framework
  • Building boilerplate, starter code, or patterns that will be copied across a project
  • The user explicitly asks for documented, verified, or "correct" implementation
  • Implementing features where the framework's recommended approach matters (forms, routing, data fetching, state management, auth)
  • Reviewing or improving code that uses framework-specific patterns
  • Any time you are about to write framework-specific code from memory

When NOT to use:

  • Correctness does not depend on a specific version (renaming variables, fixing typos, moving files)
  • Pure logic that works the same across all versions (loops, conditionals, data structures)
  • The user explicitly wants speed over verification ("just do it quickly")

The Process

DETECT ──→ FETCH ──→ IMPLEMENT ──→ CITE
  │          │           │            │
  ▼          ▼           ▼            ▼
 What       Get the    Follow the   Show your
 stack?     relevant   documented   sources
            docs       patterns

Step 1: Detect Stack and Versions

Read the project's dependency file to identify exact versions:

package.json    → Node/React/Vue/Angular/Svelte
composer.json   → PHP/Symfony/Laravel
requirements.txt / pyproject.toml → Python/Django/Flask
go.mod          → Go
Cargo.toml      → Rust
Gemfile         → Ruby/Rails

State what you found explicitly:

STACK DETECTED:
- React 19.1.0 (from package.json)
- Vite 6.2.0
- Tailwind CSS 4.0.3
→ Fetching official docs for the relevant patterns.

If versions are missing or ambiguous, ask the user. Don't guess — the version determines which patterns are correct.

Step 2: Fetch Official Documentation

Fetch the specific documentation page for the feature you're implementing. Not the homepage, not the full docs — the relevant page.

Source hierarchy (in order of authority):

PrioritySourceExample
1Official documentationreact.dev, docs.djangoproject.com, symfony.com/doc
2Official blog / changelogreact.dev/blog, nextjs.org/blog
3Web standards referencesMDN, web.dev, html.spec.whatwg.org
4Browser/runtime compatibilitycaniuse.com, node.green

Not authoritative — never cite as primary sources:

  • Stack Overflow answers
  • Blog posts or tutorials (even popular ones)
  • AI-generated documentation or summaries
  • Your own training data (that is the whole point — verify it)

Be precise with what you fetch:

BAD:  Fetch the React homepage
GOOD: Fetch react.dev/reference/react/useActionState

BAD:  Search "django authentication best practices"
GOOD: Fetch docs.djangoproject.com/en/6.0/topics/auth/

After fetching, extract the key patterns and note any deprecation warnings or migration guidance.

When official sources conflict with each other (e.g. a migration guide contradicts the API reference), surface the discrepancy to the user and verify which pattern actually works against the detected version.

Step 3: Implement Following Documented Patterns

Write code that matches what the documentation shows:

  • Use the API signatures from the docs, not from memory
  • If the docs show a new way to do something, use the new way
  • If the docs deprecate a pattern, don't use the deprecated version
  • If the docs don't cover something, flag it as unverified

When docs conflict with existing project code:

CONFLICT DETECTED:
The existing codebase uses useState for form loading state,
but React 19 docs recommend useActionState for this pattern.
(Source: react.dev/reference/react/useActionState)

Options:
A) Use the modern pattern (useActionState) — consistent with current docs
B) Match existing code (useState) — consistent with codebase
→ Which approach do you prefer?

Surface the conflict. Don't silently pick one.

Step 4: Cite Your Sources

Every framework-specific pattern gets a citation. The user must be able to verify every decision.

In code comments:

// React 19 form handling with useActionState
// Source: https://react.dev/reference/react/useActionState#usage
const [state, formAction, isPending] = useActionState(submitOrder, initialState);

In conversation:

I'm using useActionState instead of manual useState for the
form submission state. React 19 replaced the manual
isPending/setIsPending pattern with this hook.

Source: https://react.dev/blog/2024/12/05/react-19#actions
"useTransition now supports async functions [...] to handle
pending states automatically"

Citation rules:

  • Full URLs, not shortened
  • Prefer deep links with anchors where possible (e.g. /useActionState#usage over /useActionState) — anchors survive doc restructuring better than top-level pages
  • Quote the relevant passage when it supports a non-obvious decision
  • Include browser/runtime support data when recommending platform features
  • If you cannot find documentation for a pattern, say so explicitly:
UNVERIFIED: I could not find official documentation for this
pattern. This is based on training data and may be outdated.
Verify before using in production.

Honesty about what you couldn't verify is more valuable than false confidence.

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"I'm confident about this API"Confidence is not evidence. Training data contains outdated patterns that look correct but break against current versions. Verify.
"Fetching docs wastes tokens"Hallucinating an API wastes more. The user debugs for an hour, then discovers the function signature changed. One fetch prevents hours of rework.
"The docs won't have what I need"If the docs don't cover it, that's valuable information — the pattern may not be officially recommended.
"I'll just mention it might be outdated"A disclaimer doesn't help. Either verify and cite, or clearly flag it as unverified. Hedging is the worst option.
"This is a simple task, no need to check"Simple tasks with wrong patterns become templates. The user copies your deprecated form handler into ten components before discovering the modern approach exists.

Red Flags

  • Writing framework-specific code without checking the docs for that version
  • Using "I believe" or "I think" about an API instead of citing the source
  • Implementing a pattern without knowing which version it applies to
  • Citing Stack Overflow or blog posts instead of official documentation
  • Using deprecated APIs because they appear in training data
  • Not reading package.json / dependency files before implementing
  • Delivering code without source citations for framework-specific decisions
  • Fetching an entire docs site when only one page is relevant

Verification

After implementing with source-driven development:

  • Framework and library versions were identified from the dependency file
  • Official documentation was fetched for framework-specific patterns
  • All sources are official documentation, not blog posts or training data
  • Code follows the patterns shown in the current version's documentation
  • Non-trivial decisions include source citations with full URLs
  • No deprecated APIs are used (checked against migration guides)
  • Conflicts between docs and existing code were surfaced to the user
  • Anything that could not be verified is explicitly flagged as unverified

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

37.37%
按下载量换算3,387

Claude

28.53%
按下载量换算2,586

Cursor

16.39%
按下载量换算1,486

Gemini CLI

9.6%
按下载量换算870

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

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