Back to Details

shower

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
Step out of the session and let a clean mind read it: does the artifact stand on its own?
跳出当前会话，让一个无预设的视角来审阅：这份成果物能独立被理解吗？

Goal

目标

A long session quietly accumulates context you can't un-see, so you lose the ability to judge whether your work reads clearly to a first-timer — you no longer know what you left unsaid (the unknown-unknowns). The fix is a literally fresh brain: a separate sub-session that never saw this conversation cold-reads the artifact in focus and reports where a clean reader would stall. A smoke test for comprehension and handoff. This skill diagnoses; the fixing happens back in the main session.
长时间的会话会悄然累积你无法忽略的上下文信息，导致你失去判断自己的工作对新手是否清晰的能力——你不再知道自己遗漏了哪些未说明的信息（未知的未知项）。解决方案是引入一个真正的“新鲜视角”：创建一个从未参与过本次对话的独立子会话，对聚焦的成果物进行无上下文审阅，并报告无预设读者会在哪些地方受阻。这是针对可读性和移交环节的冒烟测试。该方法仅做诊断，修复工作需回到主会话中进行。

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Pin the scope: the artifact (or set) currently in focus. If "in focus" is ambiguous, confirm with the user or take the artifact just produced or under discussion. Privately note, in one line, what it is meant to be and who it is for — your yardstick for step 4; the reviewer never sees it.
  2. Launch a fresh sub-session (a subagent / Task — it starts context-free). Hand it the artifact's contents (inline, or a copy), not a repo path, and tell it not to open the project's README, docs, or neighboring files that would spoil the cold read. Give it nothing about your intent or reasoning.
  3. Have it cold-read blind and report, from the artifact alone:
    • what it takes the artifact to be, do, and expect;
    • what is unclear, ambiguous, or assumed-but-unstated;
    • what it would need to act confidently, and what it had to guess.
  4. Compare its blind understanding against the intent you noted in step 1 (which it never saw). Every mismatch is a defect in the artifact, not a reader error.
  5. Report the defects and concrete fixes, ordered by how badly each blocks a fresh reader.
  1. 明确范围：当前聚焦的成果物（或成果物集合）。若“聚焦”的定义模糊，需与用户确认，或选取刚生成的、正在讨论的成果物。私下用一句话记录该成果物的用途和受众——这将作为步骤4的衡量标准，审阅者不会看到此信息。
  2. 启动一个全新子会话（subagent / 任务——从零上下文开始）。向其提供成果物的内容（内嵌或副本），而非repo path，并告知其不要打开项目的README、文档或相邻文件，以免破坏无上下文审阅的环境。不要向其透露任何关于你的意图或推理过程的信息。
  3. 让其进行盲态无上下文审阅，并仅基于成果物本身报告：
    • 它认为该成果物是什么、能做什么以及有哪些预期；
    • 哪些内容不清晰、模糊，或是被默认假设但未明确说明的；
    • 要自信地开展相关工作需要哪些信息，以及它不得不做出哪些猜测。
  4. 将其盲态理解结果与你在步骤1中记录的意图（它从未见过）进行对比。每一处不匹配都是成果物的缺陷，而非审阅者的错误。
  5. 按对无预设读者的阻碍程度排序，报告缺陷及具体修复方案。

Rules

规则

  • The read MUST come from a separate, context-free sub-session — never self-assess in this session, because you can't un-see the context (that is the whole point).
  • Pass the artifact's contents, never your intent.
  • A forced "I had to assume…" is a finding, not a reader failure.
  • Medium-agnostic: adapt the cold-read questions to what the artifact is.
  • A single cold read is a single draw and can still be confidently wrong at high stakes; it is the default, not the ceiling of diligence, so escalate to multiple independent reads when the stakes justify the cost.
  • Read, don't sweep. The cold-read is an end-to-end read, not a pattern-grep — a sweep catches only known patterns and misses stale refs, dead links, fact drift, and silent edit-damage. Track how much was actually read; never report "clean" from a grep alone.
  • 审阅必须来自独立的零上下文子会话——绝不能在当前会话中进行自我评估，因为你无法忽略已有的上下文（这正是该方法的核心意义）。
  • 仅传递成果物的内容，绝不透露你的意图。
  • 若审阅者表示“我不得不假设……”，这是一个发现，而非审阅者的失误。
  • 与载体无关：根据成果物的类型调整无上下文审阅的问题。
  • 单次无上下文审阅只是一次抽样，在高风险场景下仍可能出现错误；这是默认的检查方式，而非最严谨的标准，因此当风险足够高时，应升级为多次独立审阅。
  • 完整审阅，而非扫描。无上下文审阅是端到端的完整阅读，而非模式匹配扫描——扫描只能发现已知模式，会遗漏过时引用、失效链接、事实偏差和隐性编辑损坏。需跟踪实际审阅的内容范围；绝不能仅通过扫描就报告“无问题”。

Verification

验证

Before finishing:
  1. The read came from a fresh sub-session blind to your intent.
  2. Report the verdict (stands on its own / minor gaps / needs work) and hand the fixes to the main session.
结束前需确认：
  1. 审阅来自对意图完全不知情的全新子会话。
  2. 给出结论（可独立理解 / 存在小漏洞 / 需要改进），并将修复方案提交至主会话。