Shower

LilMGenius/paperthin/skills/depth/shower

作者 LilMGenius7d5dc6235990230e45a24a25c527d81701da5458無授權條款收錄於 2026年10月9日更新於 2026年10月9日

Cold-read the artifact you're focused on from a fresh, zero-context sub-session to confirm it stands on its own — a shower-thought reset for accumulated session bias. Use when a long session has worn away your fresh eyes and you can no longer tell whether the artifact in focus is clear to someone with no prior context; before a handoff, publish, or merge; or when you want a clean-room comprehension smoke test. Spawns a separate context-free reviewer; it diagnoses, it does not fix.

僅含說明AI & Agents
AI 產生的概覽

在全新的無脈絡子工作階段中冷讀產物,確認其能否獨立成立。

功能
此技能會對目前聚焦的產物(例如文件或其他交付項目)進行一次理解力煙霧測試。它會啟動一個獨立的無脈絡子工作階段,只把產物的內容交給它,並要求它回報自己認為該產物是什麼、有哪些不清楚或未說明之處,以及不得不做出哪些猜測。主工作階段接著會把這份盲讀結果與自身聲明的意圖比對,並依阻礙新讀者的嚴重程度排序,回報缺陷與具體修正建議。它只負責診斷,修正會回到主工作階段進行。
適用情境
當長時間的工作階段已磨掉你的新鮮視角,讓你無法再判斷產物對毫無背景的人是否清楚時使用。它適合在交接、發佈或合併之前,或任何需要淨室式理解檢查的場合。當你想找出自身工作中未言明的假設與未知的未知時,它也同樣有用。
執行需求
不需要指令碼或套件,僅為說明性指示。它需要能夠啟動一個獨立的無脈絡子工作階段或子代理,並把產物內容傳遞給它。產物必須能以内嵌方式或副本形式交出。

Step out of the session and let a clean mind read it: does the artifact stand on its own?

Goal

A long session quietly accumulates context you can't un-see, so you lose the ability to judge whether your work reads clearly to a first-timer — you no longer know what you left unsaid (the unknown-unknowns). The fix is a literally fresh brain: a separate sub-session that never saw this conversation cold-reads the artifact in focus and reports where a clean reader would stall. A smoke test for comprehension and handoff. This skill diagnoses; the fixing happens back in the main session.

Workflow

  1. Pin the scope: the artifact (or set) currently in focus. If "in focus" is ambiguous, confirm with the user or take the artifact just produced or under discussion. Privately note, in one line, what it is meant to be and who it is for — your yardstick for step 4; the reviewer never sees it.
  2. Launch a fresh sub-session (a subagent / Task — it starts context-free). Hand it the artifact's contents (inline, or a copy), not a repo path, and tell it not to open the project's README, docs, or neighboring files that would spoil the cold read. Give it nothing about your intent or reasoning.
  3. Have it cold-read blind and report, from the artifact alone:
    • what it takes the artifact to be, do, and expect;
    • what is unclear, ambiguous, or assumed-but-unstated;
    • what it would need to act confidently, and what it had to guess.
  4. Compare its blind understanding against the intent you noted in step 1 (which it never saw). Every mismatch is a defect in the artifact, not a reader error.
  5. Report the defects and concrete fixes, ordered by how badly each blocks a fresh reader.

Rules

  • The read MUST come from a separate, context-free sub-session — never self-assess in this session, because you can't un-see the context (that is the whole point).
  • Pass the artifact's contents, never your intent.
  • A forced "I had to assume…" is a finding, not a reader failure.
  • Medium-agnostic: adapt the cold-read questions to what the artifact is.
  • A single cold read is a single draw and can still be confidently wrong at high stakes; it is the default, not the ceiling of diligence, so escalate to multiple independent reads when the stakes justify the cost.
  • Read, don't sweep. The cold-read is an end-to-end read, not a pattern-grep — a sweep catches only known patterns and misses stale refs, dead links, fact drift, and silent edit-damage. Track how much was actually read; never report "clean" from a grep alone.

Verification

Before finishing:

  1. The read came from a fresh sub-session blind to your intent.
  2. Report the verdict (stands on its own / minor gaps / needs work) and hand the fixes to the main session.

來源與署名

來源:LilMGenius/paperthin位於skills/depth/shower提交7d5dc62

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架