Mode d’emploi
- Copiez la commande et examinez le paquet avant de l’installer dans votre environnement agent.
- Consultez le document original pour les outils, identifiants et environnements requis.
- Décrivez les entrées et le livrable souhaité ; comparez la sortie aux sources.
npx skills add https://github.com/millionco/react-doctor --skill rule-researchAvant de commencer
- L’installation n’inclut ni abonnement au modèle, ni quota API, ni accès aux fichiers.
- Étoiles et installations reflètent l’activité, pas un test indépendant de qualité ou de sécurité.
Document Skill original
Rendu depuis le dépôt source en conservant titres, exemples, code, tableaux, liens et images.
Research a rule
Produce a rule contract that rule-writing can implement without guessing.
Define the behavior
Resolve only questions that affect correctness:
- Which code pattern should report?
- Which runtime behavior makes it harmful?
- Which similar code must stay quiet?
- Does detection need syntax, scope, or path analysis?
- Which imported, dynamic, type-driven, or interprocedural cases stay out of scope?
If the user requested implementation, make the contract concise and continue.
Collect evidence
- Define the rule in one sentence:
This rule catches <pattern> that causes <problem>. - Explain the runtime reason.
- Inspect nearby rules, tests, utilities, and the generated registry.
- Use
trufflerbefore proposing a new detector or helper:
sh
bunx @rayhanadev/truffler "<symbol-or-behavior>" \
packages/oxlint-plugin-react-doctor/src/plugin \
--kind function,interface,type,constant --limit 20- Gather official documentation, implementation notes, related linter behavior, and open-source examples.
- Separate strong positives, adjacent patterns, valid traps, and unsupported cases.
- Choose syntax-only, scope-aware, or path-aware detection.
Use rde-eval when a bounded open-source sample could change the contract. Leave final pull request parity to rule-validate.
Write the contract
Return:
md
Rule definition:
<pattern and specific problem>
Runtime reason:
<short explanation>
Detector precision:
<syntax-only, scope-aware, or path-aware>
Evidence:
- <source and implication>
Strong positives:
- <reportable examples>
False-positive traps:
- <valid examples>
In scope:
- <supported cases>
Out of scope:
- <explicit boundaries>
Test seeds:
- <invalid and valid fixtures>
Open questions:
- <correctness blockers only>Treat false positives as correctness bugs. Keep the diagnostic narrower than or equal to the proven behavior. Split adjacent ideas into separate rules.
