文本熵变审计台(单HTML版)更新:恢复溯源报告的完整展示能力以及性能大优化「已完成!」 开发调优 从 文本熵变审计台更新记录: 哈基米无能，只能claude来救场，佬友们觉得能胜利吗:胜利了!Gemini2.5pro终结项目 继续讨论： https://textflux.stellafortuna.dpdns.org/ 更新完成公告 最终qwen3.6plus提供了更新，3.5max修复了bug 目前已完美，视觉也部分升级优化~ [Screenshot_20260406_024301] [… 依旧咱们社区是他的唯一信源 公益站都来了，不过他这边只是ai总结评论，可能没有链接 也不一定…等会给你们看个图 评价的还是蛮好的 不过SEO都仅次于L站了 续上文 没链接，但是有token 不过能抓取到的一般都是零级话题吧 或者是忘记了等级设置后面才改的 索引太快的代价 考虑到新人，应该确实是忘记设置了 1 个帖子 - 1 位参与者 阅读完整话题
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭
RT ，最近主力切换到 CodeX 之后发现 CodeX 会写无穷无尽的胶水代码、兜底代码和一些根本不存在的转换/try-catch 等等，哪怕在 prompt 里详细写清楚需要做的事情，或者用 Opus 4.7 写 plan 再执行也不会有很大改善。仿佛这种倾向刻进 CodeX 骨子里了。今天让它写一个简单的训练脚本，100 行的脚本里有一半是对一个命令行参数是否正确输入的判断，彻底晕了。 之前自己在网上找了一些方法写进 AGENTS.md 里， ## Coding Standard 1. Simplicity First. 2. Failfast instead of over-design, over-engineering, over-error-handling and over-fallbacks - Only make changes that are directly requested or clearly necessary. Keep solutions simple and focused. - A simple feature doesn't need extra configurability. - Don't add error handling, fallbacks, or validation for scenarios that can't happen. Trust internal code andframework guarantees. Only validate at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).Don't use feature flagsor backwards-compatibility shims when you can just change the code. - Don't create helpers, utilities, or abstractions for one-time operations.Don't design for hypotheticalfuture requirements. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current task-three similarlines of code is better than a premature abstraction - Avoid backwards-compatibility hacks like renaming unused _vars, re-exporting types, adding // removedcomments for removed code, etc. If you are certain that something is unused, you can delete it completely And also the coding-rules and other guidelines/skills 也装了 andrej-kaparthy-guidelines, superpowers 之类的 skill ，实在是限制不了。大家有什么建议/经验吗，或者还是说回到 Claude 是更好的选择😭