शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Can Cursor's HARDCORE Review Skill Stop The Slop? - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें
अभ्यास मोड चुनें
हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।
230 वाक्य
यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।
1
Automated code review is one of the most impactful ways that you can improve the code quality coming out of your agent.
2
I've known this for a while, but it's taking me a while to kind of implement it
3
and figure out a reusable skill that I can give to people to review their code.
4
I've got this review skill here in my skills repo, which is currently sitting at 109,000 stars,
5
and it is currently marked as in progress.
6
I'm sort of okay with it, but I'm not terribly happy with it.
7
So I've been looking around for inspiration in other skills that I can copy from, steal ideas from, and one crossed my path that I want to show you.
8
It is this one from the Cursed team.
9
It is the Thermonuclear Code Quality Review.
10
Use this skill for an unusually strict review focused on implementation quality, maintainability, abstraction quality and codebase health.
11
And one thing I think is notable about this skill is how ambitious it asks the reviewer to be.
12
asking it to be very ambitious and look for code judo moves throughout the review.
13
The skill itself is simply one file.
14
It's just a skill.md up here.
15
And what I thought I'd do is I would copy it to my local system, try it out on some actual code of mine, and see what it comes up with.
16
Yesterday, I spent a lot of time working on Sandcastle, my open source software factory.
17
And so I figure I would review the last X number of commits and see what it thought about them.
18
So I'm going to be pretty loose here.
19
I'm just going to say thermonuclear code quality review.
20
Review the last five PRs that made it to main.
21
I'm going to stick it on auto mode and
22
while it's doing this let's go and actually read the skill because that should explain the skill a bit more.
23
So it starts from this baseline.
24
Perform a deep code quality audit of the current branch's changes.
25
Rethink how to structure implement the changes to meaningfully improve code quality without impacting behavior.
26
Work to improve abstractions, modularity, reduce spaghetti code.
27
Improve succinctness and legibility. Be ambitious.
28
If there is a clear path to improving the implementation that involves restructuring some of the code base, go for it.
29
Be extremely thorough and rigorous.
30
Measure twice, cut once.
31
What I've often found with review skills like this is that the agent is not ambitious enough.
32
If you pass an agent a diff, then it will usually treat that diff as its bounds within which it can work.
33
Whereas this prompt appears to be going beyond that.
34
It's essentially saying look throughout the entire code base for opportunities, but starting from this current branch's changes.
35
It also goes on to add a bunch of non-negotiable additional standards.
36
Be ambitious about structural simplification.
37
Again, the ambition.
38
Do not let a PR push a file from under 1K lines to over 1K lines without a very strong reason.
39
This is really interesting.
40
I've actually reached this conclusion myself as well large files are just quite hard for agents to navigate
41
because they need to ingest the entire file into their context
42
window in order to find the thing that's actually useful within it.
43
A much better way to structure that is to split them into multiple files
44
and let the file name of the file be the context pointer
45
that tells it what's in that file and whether it might need to open it.
46
This ends up being a lot more context efficient.
47
I have generally split my files if if they go over 5K tokens, but this 1K lines is sort of, I guess, a similar rubric.
48
Do not allow random spaghetti growth in existing code.
49
Okay, I see, It's sort of arguing against nesting here.
50
If a change adds weird if statements in random places, treat that as a design problem, not a stylistic knit.
51
Prefer pushing the logic into a dedicated abstraction helper state machine policy object or separate module instead of tangling an existing path.
52
Interesting.
53
This is another way of telling it to be aggressive about, you know, if there's a bunch of nested if statements and weird conditionals,
54
maybe abstract that into a cleaner abstraction or a helper or something.
55
It's arguable whether I prefer that.
56
I suppose sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
57
But let's assume it's a good thing for now.
58
Bias towards cleaning the design, not just accepting working code.
59
Again, pushing it to be ambitious.
60
Prefer direct, boring, maintainable code of a hacky and magical code.
61
This is like a classic one in these prompts.
62
This comes from, I think, Simplify in Claude Code.
63
Not the same wording, I think, but a similar idea that you want simple, direct code that's easy to read.
64
I really like this one, actually.
65
Push hard on type and boundary cleanliness when they affect maintainability.
66
So we're specifically talking about types here.
67
Question unnecessary optionality, unknown, any, or cast heavy code when a clearer type boundary could exist.
68
This is kind of TypeScript focused here.
69
Unknown and any are specifically TypeScript terms.
70
And the unnecessary optionality is one that always gets me.
71
Whenever an agent adds a prop onto a React component, let's say, it always adds it as optional.
72
I don't know why.
73
I don't know why.
74
It's so stupid.
75
Even when it's always required, it will add it as optional just to make it backwards compatible or something, or to lessen the blast radius of the change.
76
So yeah, question unnecessary optionality is a great one.
77
Keep logic in the canonical layer and reuse existing helpers.
78
Prefer existing canonical utilities and helpers over bespoke one-offs.
79
Yes, I suppose it's basically just telling it to look for
80
places where this has already been solved in the code base and use those instead.
81
Makes sense.
82
Treat unnecessary sequential orchestration and non-atomic updates as design smells when the cleaner structure is obvious.
83
If independent work is serialized for no good reason, ask whether the flow should run in parallel instead.
84
I see.
85
This is about performance, essentially.
86
Obviously, when two things that are independent, if they run in parallel, then it's going to be faster than if they run sequentially.
87
So that's kind of what it's going for here.
88
But it's also saying do not over-index on micro-optimizations.
89
Okay, so it's basically telling it don't go too far.
90
I think if this was my skill, I would definitely rewrite this to be a lot more direct.
91
Treat unnecessary sequential orchestration, non-atomic updates as design smells.
92
That's just word salad to me.
93
I don't know what that means.
94
So this is really cool.
95
Primer review questions.
96
For every meaningful change, ask, is there a code judo move that would make this dramatically simpler?
97
That's great.
98
I love that.
99
Can this be reframed so that fewer concepts, branch or helper layers are needed?
100
Lovely.
101
I don't love this.
102
Does this improve or worsen the local architecture?
103
You've got to say exactly what good
104
and bad looks like to an agent in order for improve or worsen to mean anything.
105
Overall, this set of questions, along with the kind of rules above, give the agent a nice kind of way in to talking about the code, which is what you need.
106
And now it talks about really bad stuff.
107
Escalate findings when you see a complicated implementation where a cleaner reframing could delete whole categories of complexity.
108
Refactors that move code around but fail to reduce the number of concepts a reader must hold in their head.
109
Yeah, there's a bit of repetition going on here unnecessary casts, any unknown or optional params.
110
What sort of scares me about these big review-based prompts is
111
that this is a huge ball of mud for the agent to read.
112
Like, there's a lot of instructions in here, and it's hard to know what to prioritize for the agent.
113
So I don't know.
114
This makes me a little bit nervous.
115
I do like this, though.
116
When you identify a code quality problem, perverse suggestions like delete a whole layer of indirection rather than polishing it.
117
Again, ambition.
118
Split a large file into smaller focused modules.
119
Again, you know, making things easier to navigate for the agent.
120
Again, duplication.
121
Make type boundaries more explicit so the control flow gets simpler.
122
There's a lot of duplication throughout a lot of this.
123
This could be cut down, I think, quite a lot.
124
Review tone.
125
I don't know why this is here.
126
This is just sort of saying choose your tone, I suppose.
127
Be direct, serious, and demanding about quality.
128
Do not be rude.
129
This seems like a crazy thing to add to a skill.
130
I don't know why that's here.
131
What this does do is it does really punch the language that the agent should be using.
132
So we're really emphasizing code judo, saying decompose, pushes the file past, makes the surrounding code more spaghetti.
133
I like that.
134
But the down we can say output expectations.
135
Right.
136
This is nice.
137
It's saying to prioritize findings in this order.
138
It's saying to float the important stuff to the top and legibility and maintainability concerns are at the bottom.
139
Structural code quality regressions right at the top.
140
Right.
141
And it is asking for an approval here.
142
So it's approving or rejecting the PR.
143
And again, tons and tons of repetition here.
144
This skill could be a lot shorter.
145
So what we have is a large block of text that basically says be more ambitious.
146
Here are some specific things that you can focus on in your review.
147
Really go nuts here and propose a ton of structural changes.
148
Make sure that you prioritize your findings in a certain order so you don't flood it with useless crap.
149
And then approve or reject based on these conditions.
150
What I don't like here is there's no mention of testing.
151
There's no mention of scenes.
152
There's no mention of any kind of improving the feedback loops to make future runs better,
153
which in my view is the entire point now of having a good code base
154
or having a code base that's easy to change and modular and easy to navigate.
155
All of this appears to be focused on actual source code, none of it on tests.
156
Interesting.
157
But okay, let's read what it said here.
158
So it's taken the last five PRs to main and it has found some blocker class structural issues.
159
Okay, it's found that an init service is now a big file, so it's over 1,000 lines and it mixes a bunch of stuff here
160
and it should have been preceded by a split and it's proposed a nice split there.
161
Oh, it's also trying to create an abstraction here,
162
a little make registry generic function returning this would delete 20 lines of duplicated boilerplate at the same time.
163
Feels good.
164
That's nice.
165
So we now go to the next one, the feature specific if issue tracker name custom scattered across three layers.
166
Interesting.
167
It's basically saying that instead of this being a special case if statement here, we should instead do a bit of code judo
168
and push the custom tracker variations into a type itself and then it can be read later.
169
I think in terms of suggestions here, I happen to know this code quite well.
170
I think we are at two out of two here.
171
That seems like two really good suggestions.
172
Down here we have an inconsistent contract.
173
Template args carries both shell commands and prose markers.
174
It's basically saying that some of these are runnable but some of these are not runnable here.
175
And it's saying that maybe we should widen the type to either a command
176
or a to-do marker discriminated union or use a different field entirely for unfilled markers.
177
So basically, it's basically trying to strengthen the type boundary here
178
so that we don't later pass in a prose marker into something else.
179
That's interesting.
180
I think that this comes from an inaccurate understanding of the whole system, which is okay.
181
You're going to get some false positives, I suppose, to the false positive in any review prompt.
182
So this is the kind of thing, if it came up in a PR, I would say, this is fine.
183
Don't worry about it.
184
So two out of three, not bad.
185
Let's look at the strong code quality issues.
186
Aha, we do have a weird bug here that it's, well not a bug, just a weird bit of code design.
187
We essentially have different templates in Sandcastle that each declare the dependencies that they need.
188
And mostly they declare Zod as their dependency.
189
So we have this weird code path in here that looks like it just hardcodes Zod.
190
And then, interesting.
191
Yeah, overall this is quite hard to explain, but it's definitely pulled up something weird here.
192
So I think we're at three out of four, which is good.
193
Oh, it's found some swallowed errors here.
194
Exact sync inside effect.sync with swallowed errors.
195
Interesting.
196
We can see it's trying something inside here.
197
And if it fails, then it just like returns false inside here.
198
So yeah, this is definitely another thing that I would like the reviewer to look at.
199
Looks like we started decomposing a large file into small files, but only half finished.
200
So this again is a good one.
201
This is five out of six so far.
202
And it's now saying there is a bit of prompt duplication within some prompts that were changed here.
203
So the change is byte identical for two different prompts here.
204
It's saying that we should refactor those into an issue list preamble.
205
I don't think that's right.
206
I think that prompts should just be independently changeable.
207
So not bad though.
208
Five out of seven.
209
Then it's got a list of smaller items worth fixing here.
210
I've done a quick scan and I would say most of those look pretty good and interesting.
211
I'm kind of intrigued by the approval bar here.
212
Under the skills stated bar, a couple of the PRs should not have landed in their current shape.
213
The behaviour is correct in all three substantive PRs, but the code base is meaningfully messier than it was a week ago.
214
Well, cool.
215
I mean, we got some really good feedback from this skill, I think.
216
I think what this is teaching me is
217
that actually getting the review to be super ambitious and getting it to push a lot of different options
218
will give you more false positives, but those false positives are pretty easy just to say no to, right?
219
It's the ones that you miss that you never know about, the opportunities for improvement that you never see, those are the dangerous ones.
220
Overall, I will clean up this skill so it's not quite so duplicative, so there's a bit more dry.
221
And I would also just get it to focus a lot more on tests as well.
222
Think about the seams in your codebase, kind of like what my improved codebase architecture does.
223
But overall, I think this is worth pulling down, experimenting with, and just seeing what comes out of it.
224
Now, if you dig this stuff, then I'm running a cohort starting next week, starting June 1st, on AI coding for real engineers.
225
This has been my most subscribed to course ever.
226
People are going nuts for this.
227
We're going to have, I think, around 4,000, 4,500 people in there.
228
So yeah, it's absolutely wild.
229
But if you're enjoying this stuff, if there's a skill that you want me to review, I really like making that content because it lets me steal ideas from other people's great skills, then let me know.
230
Nice work, and I'll see you very soon.
ऐप डाउनलोड करें
धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ
AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर
IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत
शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ
शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें
उसी चैनल से
C14
New Skills! v1.3 brings /pr, /implement-spec, and /retro
British AccentBusiness EnglishWorking Adults
C13
mattpocock/skills: A complete AI Coding workflow, end-to-end
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
I was an AI skeptic. Then I tried plan mode
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
/wayfinder: Nothing is too big to plan anymore
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C15
The 7 phases of AI-driven development
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
New Skills! v1.2 brings /wait-what, /writing-for-agents, and fixes /grill-me
British AccentDaily ConversationWorking Adults
C13
Learn anything with the /teach skill
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C16
5 Claude Code skills I use every single day
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
New Skills! v1.1 brings /wayfinder, /research, /implement, /to-spec, /to-tickets
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
How to actually force Claude Code to use the right CLI (don't use CLAUDE.md)
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C15
Most devs don't understand what agents are
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
Most devs don't understand how LLM tokens work
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1New Skills! /handoff, /prototype, /review and /writing-* | Skills Changelog
British AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
FOR YOU
अनुशंसित वीडियो
C13
80 वाक्य
What is clean code? - Uncle Bob
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C225
249 वाक्य
Fast & Clear Advanced English Practice | Improve Your Listening & Speaking with this English Podcast
British AccentBusiness EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C15
230 वाक्य
Starship - Test Like You Fly
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
432 वाक्य
Can I remake those SH*TTY mobile games in 1 HOUR? ...again
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
43 वाक्य
Meta’s Llama 4 is mindblowing… but did it cheat?
American AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C16
230 वाक्य
How to Rewire Your Brain to Enjoy Discipline (Dopamine Detox Explained)
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
61 वाक्य
MCP Just Got a Whole Lot Better
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C113
202 वाक्य
SAC | Soft Actor Critic (SAC) architecture | SAC Explained
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1117 वाक्य
I've Changed My Opinion On DEVELOPERS Vibe Coding
American AccentBusiness EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C18
24 वाक्य
Introducing Automations: always-on coding agents
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
इस पाठ के बारे में
इस पाठ में, आप एक कोड समीक्षा कौशल के बारे में जानेंगे, जो कोड की गुणवत्ता में सुधार करने का एक प्रभावी तरीका है। आप जानेंगे कि कैसे एक सख्त समीक्षा प्रक्रिया को लागू किया जा सकता है जो कार्यान्वयन गुणवत्ता, बनाए रखे जाने की योग्यता और कोडबेस स्वास्थ्य पर केंद्रित होती है। इसके अलावा, आप कुछ उपयोगी शब्दावली और वाक्यांशों को सीखेंगे जो आपको अंग्रेजी में उनके उच्चारण में सुधार करने में मदद करेंगे।
मुख्य शब्दावली और वाक्यांश
- कोड की गुणवत्ता (Code Quality)
- समीक्षा कौशल (Review Skill)
- नीति और प्रक्रियाएँ (Policies and Procedures)
- संरचना और कार्यान्वयन (Structure and Implementation)
- अभ्यास (Abstractions)
- स्पैगेटी कोड (Spaghetti Code)
- प्रगति (Progress)
- गहराई से ऑडिट (Deep Audit)
अभ्यास टिप्स
इस वीडियो की स्पीड और टोन के अनुसार, अंग्रेजी शैडोइंग का अभ्यास करते समय, ध्यान दें कि आप कैसे संवाद करते हैं। धीमी गति से बोलने पर ध्यान दें, ताकि आप उच्चारण और शब्दों के सही उच्चारण पर ध्यान केंद्रित कर सकें। यदि आप shadowspeaks का उपयोग कर रहे हैं, तो वीडियो को थोड़ी देर तक रुककर देखें और फिर से सुनें। इससे आपको अपने उच्चारण को सुधारने का मौका मिलेगा।
शुरुआत में, अपनी आवाज़ को वीडियो के साथ मिलाने का प्रयास करें। इस तरह, आप न केवल सुनेंगे बल्कि प्राकृतिक अंग्रेजी बोलने की कला में खुद को डुबो देंगे। कम से कम दो बार वीडियो को सुनें और उच्चारण पर ध्यान दें, खासकर उन शब्दों पर जिन्हें आप सामान्यतः गलत बोलते हैं।
अंततः, यह अभ्यास केवल एक shadowing site पर ही सीमित नहीं है, बल्कि इसे विभिन्न स्रोतों से लेकर अपनी अंग्रेजी बोलने की क्षमता में सुधार के लिए किया जा सकता है।
इस वीडियो का व्याकरण
वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:
| संरचना | वीडियो में |
|---|---|
| शर्त वाले वाक्य if + उपवाक्य, will/would + क्रिया — शर्त और उसका नतीजा | if this was my skill, I would definitely |
| Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है | I've known · I've often found · I've actually reached |
| Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है | is currently marked · been solved · is serialized |
| Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी | repo, which is · code, which is · system, which is |
शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?
शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।