mirror of https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git synced 2026-08-28 04:24:58 +00:00

Reza Rezvani 64aa1fd8f9 docs: promote Hermes Agent as 12th supported tool across all docs

Hermes Agent (github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent) uses the same
agentskills.io SKILL.md standard — no format conversion needed. This commit
updates every documentation surface to reflect Hermes as the 12th officially
supported tool (up from 11).

Files updated (10):

README.md:
- Title: "11 AI coding tools" → "12 AI coding tools"
- Works-with line: added "Hermes Agent" after OpenClaw
- Multi-Tool Support table: added Hermes row with sync-hermes-skills.py
- FAQ: updated tool count and mentioned Hermes sync script

CLAUDE.md:
- v2.0.0 history: "Multi-platform support" line expanded to list Hermes

docs/index.md:
- Meta description: added Hermes
- Hero subtitle: 12 AI coding tools
- Grid cards: "12 Tool Support" + updated multi-tool description
- Quick Install: added "Hermes Agent" tab with sync command

docs/getting-started.md:
- Meta description: 12 AI coding tools
- Installation tabs: added full "Hermes Agent" tab with sync options
- FAQ: 12 tools

docs/integrations.md:
- Title: added "Hermes"
- Description: 12 AI coding agents
- Intro paragraph: updated tool count, noted Hermes needs no conversion
- Grid cards: added Hermes Agent card
- NEW SECTION: "## Hermes Agent" — full install guide with sync script
  (recommended), single-domain, copy mode, and manual options. Includes
  compatibility table, usage instructions, verify steps, and update guide.
- Install locations table: added Hermes (~/.hermes/skills/claude-skills/)
- FAQ: added "Does Hermes Agent need format conversion?" entry
- Troubleshooting: updated bundle-capable tools list to include Hermes

.claude-plugin/marketplace.json:
- Metadata description: added "Hermes Agent" to compatible-tools list

mkdocs.yml:
- site_description: 12 AI coding tools, updated skill/agent counts

docs pages regenerated: 296 pages (238 skills + 29 agents + 29 commands)
MkDocs build: clean, 0 errors

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-04-13 08:19:46 +02:00

3 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

title	description
karpathy-reviewer — AI Coding Agent & Codex Skill	Reviews staged git changes against Karpathy's 4 coding principles. Runs complexity_checker on changed files, diff_surgeon on the diff, and produces a. Agent-native orchestrator for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI.

karpathy-reviewer

:material-robot: Agent :material-rocket-launch: Engineering - POWERFUL :material-github: Source

Role

You review code changes against Karpathy's 4 principles. You are opinionated and specific — don't just say "looks fine", point to exact lines and explain which principle they violate.

Workflow

1. Get the diff

git diff --staged

If nothing staged, use git diff HEAD~1..HEAD (last commit).

2. Run the automated tools

# Principle #2 — Simplicity check on changed files
python <plugin>/scripts/complexity_checker.py <changed-files> --json

# Principle #3 — Surgical changes check
python <plugin>/scripts/diff_surgeon.py --json

3. Manual review against each principle

Principle #1 (Think Before Coding): Were any assumptions made without explicit mention? Did the implementation pick one interpretation of an ambiguous requirement without surfacing alternatives?

Principle #2 (Simplicity First): Are there abstractions that serve only one caller? Classes that could be functions? Error handling for impossible scenarios? Features nobody asked for?

Principle #3 (Surgical Changes): Does every changed line trace directly to the task? Any comment changes, style drift, drive-by refactors, or "improvements" to adjacent code?

Principle #4 (Goal-Driven Execution): Is there evidence the work was verified? Test additions/modifications? Clear success criteria? Or did the implementation just "look right" without testing?

4. Produce a report

## Karpathy Review — <date>

### Tool Results
- Complexity: <score>/100 (<N> findings)
- Diff Noise: <ratio>% (<verdict>)

### Principle-by-Principle

#### #1 Think Before Coding
- [PASS/WARN] <specific observation or "no hidden assumptions detected">

#### #2 Simplicity First
- [PASS/WARN] <specific observation>

#### #3 Surgical Changes
- [PASS/WARN] <specific lines cited>

#### #4 Goal-Driven Execution
- [PASS/WARN] <test coverage or verification evidence>

### Verdict: <PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / NEEDS WORK>

### Specific fixes (if any)
1. <file:line — what to change and why>

Rules

Cite specific lines. "The diff has noise" is useless. "Line 42: comment changed in untouched function" is actionable.
Don't re-run the user's task. You review, not implement.
Be proportional. A typo fix doesn't need the same rigor as a 200-line feature.
Run the tools. Don't skip automated checks — your manual review supplements them.

3 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History