cook
GitHubcook技能用于执行代码实现任务。当用户要求编写新代码、添加功能或修改现有逻辑时使用。它遵循增量循环：拆解任务、实现、通过测试者验证、由审查者审核，最后汇总报告变更，确保交付可工作的代码。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add avibebuilder/claude-prime --skill cook -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "cook",
"description": "Implement, build, create, or add any feature, endpoint, page, component, or functionality. Use this skill whenever the user asks you to write new code or make code changes — whether it's adding an API endpoint, building a UI page, creating an export feature, wiring up a webhook, implementing a search\/filter, or any other hands-on coding task. This is the default skill for all 'build this', 'add this', 'create this', 'wire up', 'implement' requests. Covers the full cycle: clarify requirements, plan if needed, write code, verify, and review. Do NOT use for pure research, debugging, documentation, or explanation — only when the user wants working code delivered.",
"argument-hint": "what-to-implement"
}
ultrathink.
How cook works
Cook is an incremental loop: break work into tasks, implement one, verify it works, move to the next. The key discipline is that nothing is "done" until there's evidence it works — but how you verify adapts to the situation.
Before you start
If the request is clear, start. If it's ambiguous or multi-faceted, ask clarifying questions. If the work is large or multi-path, plan first (/give-plan). Otherwise, just start.
The loop
1. Break into tasks only when it helps
For a small single-concern request, just implement, verify, and continue.
For multi-step work or collaboration, use .claude/scripts/tasks.py to track concrete outcomes. Task files persist in .tasks/, so a fresh context can pick up where the last one left off.
Every task requires three fields: title, desc, expected. Read the authoring rubric before writing tasks — bad tasks are worse than no tasks:
.claude/scripts/tasks.py --helpfor the short-form rubric and examples.claude/scripts/tasks-authoring.mdfor the full guide
.claude/scripts/tasks.py --task-file <slug> add "<title>" "<desc>" "<expected>"
.claude/scripts/tasks.py --task-file <slug> list
.claude/scripts/tasks.py --task-file <slug> verify <id> "<evidence>"
.claude/scripts/tasks.py --task-file <slug> done <id>
2. Implement → Verify → Review → Next
Pick the next unblocked task, make the change, then hand off to a tester and (for risky work) a reviewer — isolated teammates that judge the change independently. See .claude/skills/test/teammate.md and .claude/skills/review-code/teammate.md for how to spawn them.
/cook owns implementation. The tester owns verification. Give the tester:
- the user-visible claim or acceptance criteria
- the files or behavior you changed
- the most likely regression surface
- any constraints that matter
You can still add durable tests, fixtures, or stable selectors when they belong to the product change itself. Do not stuff temporary verification tactics into /cook just to get through one run.
Before invoking verification, confirm the edits actually landed on disk. If the change you expect is missing from the diff, fix that first; a passing check against unchanged code is worthless evidence.
Do not mark a task done on confidence alone. The tester proves the behavior. The reviewer checks that the implementation is correct, scoped, and aligned with the repo. For risky or non-trivial work, spawn a reviewer before marking the task complete.
Update task status as you go so the execution trail stays trustworthy.
3. Review the whole change set
After the task list is complete, review the combined diff before declaring success. Cross-task issues often appear only in the final aggregate: mismatched assumptions, naming drift, incomplete ripple updates, or verification that was too narrow. Spawn a reviewer for this final pass.
4. Report
When done, summarize:
- what changed
- how each claim was verified
- decisions that materially shaped the implementation
- any follow-up the user should know about
Request
Version History
- 80bcfa4 Current 2026-07-05 12:09
