
Nuwa Skill
- 86 installs
- skills.volces.com
Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.
About
nuwa-skill is a Claude Code skill for ai & agent building. It helps developers move faster with AI-assisted coding.
- nuwa-skill
- AI & Agent Building
- AI-coding skill
Nuwa Skill by the numbers
- 86 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #5,032 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Jul 7, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/skills.volces.com --skill nuwa-skillAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 86 |
|---|---|
| Repository | skills.volces.com ↗ |
What it does
Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.
Files
Nuwa · Skill Creation Engine (女娲 · Skill造人术)
"The parts you can't write into a SKILL.md — that's your real moat." But the parts you CAN write are already powerful enough.
Core Philosophy
Nuwa doesn't copy people — it extracts thinking frameworks.
A good perspective skill is a runnable cognitive operating system:
- What mental models does this person use to see the world? (lenses)
- What decision heuristics do they use to make judgments? (rules of thumb)
- How do they express themselves? (DNA)
- What do they absolutely refuse to do? (anti-patterns)
- What can't this skill do? (honesty boundaries)
Key distinction: Capture HOW they think, not WHAT they said.
---
Execution Flow
Phase 0: Clarify Requirements (30 seconds)
After receiving a name, confirm:
1. Who is this person/topic: Ensure correct understanding 2. Focus direction (optional): Full portrait vs. focused on one dimension? 3. Purpose: Thinking advisor? Decision reference? Role-play? 4. New or update: Does a skill for this person already exist?
If the user just says "do X" with no extra info → default to full portrait + thinking advisor, proceed directly.
Phase 0.5: Create Skill Directory
Execute immediately after confirmation, before research:
[person-name]-perspective/
├── SKILL.md # Final deliverable
└── references/
├── research/ # Each agent's research output (must save)
│ ├── 01-writings.md # Writings & systematic thinking
│ ├── 02-conversations.md # Long conversations & improvisational thinking
│ ├── 03-expression-dna.md # Fragment expression & style DNA
│ ├── 04-external-views.md # External perspectives & criticism
│ ├── 05-decisions.md # Decision records & actions
│ └── 06-timeline.md # Person timeline
└── sources/ # Downloaded primary materials
├── books/
├── transcripts/
└── articles/Key rule: Every subagent MUST save research results to its corresponding md file. Research without files is research that never happened. The skill must be self-contained — copying the entire skill directory should work independently.
---
Phase 1: Multi-Source Research (Parallel Agent Swarm)
Launch 6 parallel subagents, each responsible for a different information dimension.
6 Agent Assignments
| Agent | Search Target | Key Extractions | Output File |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Writings | Books, essays, papers, newsletters | Core arguments recurring ≥3 times = true belief, coined terms, reading lists | 01-writings.md |
| 2 Conversations | Podcasts, long videos, AMAs, deep interviews | Responses under pressure, impromptu analogies, changed positions, refused questions | 02-conversations.md |
| 3 Expression | Twitter/X, Weibo, short posts | High-frequency sentence patterns, controversial stances, humor style, public debates | 03-expression-dna.md |
| 4 External | Others' analysis, book reviews, criticism, biographies | Externally observed patterns, criticism & controversies, peer comparisons | 04-external-views.md |
| 5 Decisions | Major decisions, turning points, controversial actions | Decision context & logic, post-hoc reflections, say-do consistency | 05-decisions.md |
| 6 Timeline | Birth/debut to present | Key milestones, thought turning points, last 12 months (prevent staleness) | 06-timeline.md |
Hard Requirements for Each Agent
- Research results MUST be saved to
references/research/0X-xxx.md - Note source and credibility (primary > secondary > inference)
- Distinguish "they said" vs "others said about them" vs "I inferred"
- When contradictions are found, preserve them — don't smooth them over
Source Priority
| Source Type | What It Reveals | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Their own writings | Systematic thinking | Highest |
| Long conversations/interviews | Improvisational thinking process | Highest |
| Actual decision records | Real behavior vs. claims | Highest |
| Social media | Expression style, instant reactions | Medium |
| Others' evaluations | External perspective, blind spots | Medium |
| Second-hand accounts | Reference but needs verification | Low |
Source Blocklist (Always Exclude)
For Chinese figures, exclude: Zhihu (知乎), WeChat public accounts (微信公众号), Baidu Baike/Zhidao. Only accept authoritative Chinese media: 36Kr, GeekPark, LatePost, Caixin, Yicai, Huxiu, SSPAI, etc.
Agent Failure Handling
- Timeout/no results: Don't wait, continue. Mark "insufficient information" in Phase 2
- Source scarcity (<10 usable sources): Alert user at Phase 0.5, lower expectations, increase honesty boundaries
- Agent result conflicts: Preserve contradictions — contradictions are valuable signals
Key rule: Better to generate an honest 60-point skill with clearly marked limitations than a seemingly perfect 90-point skill that fabricates information.
Phase 1.5: Research Review Checkpoint
After all agents complete, pause and display a research quality summary:
┌──────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ Agent │ Sources │ Key Findings │
├──────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ 1 Writings │ 8 │ Core thesis: ... │
│ 2 Conversations │ 5 │ Position change: ... │
│ 3 Expression │ 120 │ High-freq: "skin in..." │
│ 4 External │ 6 │ Main criticism: ... │
│ 5 Decisions │ 4 │ Key decision: ... │
│ 6 Timeline │ Complete │ Latest: March 2026... │
├──────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Contradictions │ 2 │ Agent1 says X, Agent4 Y │
│ Info gaps │ None │ │
└──────────────────┴──────────┴──────────────────────────┘User confirms quality → proceed to Phase 2. User wants more on some dimension → supplement before continuing.
---
Phase 2: Framework Extraction (Synthesis)
2.1 Mental Model Extraction (3-7)
Identification criteria:
- Cross-domain recurrence: Same framework appears in 2+ different domains → real mental model
- Has coined terminology: Named this thinking pattern → core belief
- Predictive power: Can predict their stance on new questions
Each model records: Name, one-line description, source evidence (≥2 scenarios), application method, limitations
2.2 Decision Heuristics Extraction (5-10)
= Quick rules this person uses when making judgments. Expressible as "if X, then Y" with specific case support.
2.3 Expression DNA Analysis
| Dimension | Extraction |
|---|---|
| Sentence preferences | Long/short, question/statement, analogy density |
| Vocabulary traits | High-frequency words, proprietary terms, taboo words |
| Rhythm | Conclusion-first or setup-first, transition style |
| Humor style | Sarcasm/self-deprecation/absurdist/dry/none |
| Certainty expression | "I'm not sure" type or "obviously" type |
| Citation habits | Who they cite, what type |
2.4 Values & Anti-Patterns
- Values: 3-5 ranked core values
- Anti-patterns: Behaviors/thinking this person explicitly opposes
- Contradictions & tensions: Internal conflicts between values (source of depth)
2.5 Intellectual Genealogy
Who influenced them → Them → Who they influenced → Position on the intellectual map
2.6 Honesty Boundaries
Limitations that MUST be explicitly stated:
- Cannot predict reactions to entirely novel problems
- Cannot replace this person's creativity and intuition
- Public expression vs. private thoughts may differ
- Information cutoff at research date
---
Phase 3: Skill Construction
Read references/skill-template.md for the standard template, fill in Phase 2 results.
Output: SKILL.md (main file) + research source index appended at the end.
---
Phase 4: Quality Validation
After generating the skill, use a subagent for 3 independent tests:
4.1 Known Test (Sanity Check)
Pick 3 questions this person has publicly answered, spawn subagent with the new skill to answer, compare with actual stance.
- Direction matches → model works
- Deviation → trace back and adjust mental model weights
4.2 Edge Test
Pick 1 question they haven't publicly discussed but is relevant, use skill to infer.
- Expected: "Based on models X and Y, possibly... but uncertain"
- Should NOT be absolutely certain
4.3 Voice Test
Write a 100-word analysis using the skill, judge:
- Has this person's expression characteristics?
- Not generic AI platitudes?
- Not a patchwork of original quotes?
4.4 Pass Criteria
| Check | Pass | Fail Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Mental model count | 3-7, each with source evidence | <3 or >10 |
| Each model's limitations | Clear failure conditions stated | Only upsides listed |
| Expression DNA recognition | Can identify who in 100 words | Reads like generic ChatGPT |
| Honesty boundaries | ≥3 specific limitations | Only "can't replace the person" |
| Internal tensions | ≥2 contradiction pairs | Views highly consistent (too fake) |
| Primary source ratio | >50% | Mainly second-hand accounts |
Pass → deliver. Fail → mark weak points, iterate back to Phase 2.
Show validation results to user for confirmation before completion.
---
Updating Existing Skills
When user says "update X's skill" or "X has new developments":
1. Read existing SKILL.md, note last research date 2. Only launch Agent 2 (latest conversations) + Agent 5 (latest decisions) + Agent 6 (timeline update) 3. Compare new info with existing content — strengthen, update, or add 4. Update SKILL.md incrementally, don't rewrite entirely
---
Taste Guidelines
Good Skill vs Bad Skill
| Good Skill | Bad Skill |
|---|---|
| Can handle new problems | Can only repeat old quotes |
| Has internal contradictions | All views highly consistent (fake) |
| Acknowledges uncertainty | Has answers for everything |
| 3-7 core models, deep and sharp | 20 vague "principles" |
| Expression has recognition | Reads like ChatGPT |
| Explicitly states limitations | Implies it can replace the person |
Research Taste
1. Primary > Secondary: Their own words > others' accounts 2. Long-form > Quotes: A 3000-word essay reveals more thinking structure than 50 tweets 3. Controversy > Consensus: Most disputed views reveal the most uniqueness 4. Change > Fixed: Changed positions carry more information than consistent ones 5. Behavior > Words: Actual decisions > public statements
Extraction Taste
1. Less is more: 3 deep mental models > 15 shallow principles 2. Contradictions are features, not bugs: Preserve internal tensions 3. Don't beautify: Blind spots and limitations are part of the personality 4. Falsifiable: Each mental model should be verifiable or refutable by specific cases
Never Do
- Fabricate things this person never said
- Package generic wisdom as their "unique insight"
- Ignore negative evaluations and controversies
- Imply this skill equals the person themselves
- Force-generate when information is insufficient
---
Special Scenarios
Living Person vs Historical Figure
- Living: Watch for timeliness, mark cutoff date, suggest periodic updates
- Historical: More stable materials but possible biographical bias, cross-source verification
Topic Skill vs Person Skill
Input is a topic (e.g., "value investing") not a person:
- Phase 1 searches for core practitioners and theorists of the topic
- Phase 2 extracts domain consensus + school-of-thought divergences
- Output centers on the topic, citing multiple person perspectives
---
Final Note
Nuwa doesn't create people — it creates mirrors.
A good perspective skill lets you see your own problems through someone else's eyes. Not to imitate them, but to expand your own thinking boundaries.