最近写了个零外部依赖的轻量级 Agent 框架： Lite Agent 。 它就像一瓶“万能胶水”，只要写个简单的 Python 函数加个 @skill 装饰器，就能瞬间把本地原本散落的脚本、系统运维、爬虫等工具全部接入进来。目前支持飞书、钉钉、企微和原生 OpenAI 接口（方便用 ChatBox 等直接连）。 把繁杂的旧工具全交给自然语言去调度，感觉爽多了，分享给有同样折腾需求的朋友。 项目地址： https://github.com/maifeipin/lite_agent
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😭