Best fit
- API、エージェント、およびLLMエンドポイントのアクセス制御と認可パターン。
affaan-m/ECC
API、エージェント、およびLLMエンドポイントのアクセス制御と認可パターン。
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "docs/ja-JP/skills/gateguard"Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026
Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md
According to the pinned SKILL.md from affaan-m/ECC: A PreToolUse hook that forces Claude to investigate before editing. Instead of self-evaluation ("are you sure?"), it demands concrete facts. The act of investigation creates awareness that self-evaluation never did.
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "docs/ja-JP/skills/gateguard"Best fit
Bring this context
Expected outputs
Key source sections
Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.
The hook at scripts/hooks/gateguard-fact-force.js is included in this plugin. Enable it via hooks.json.
Working on any codebase where file edits affect multiple modules
LLM self-evaluation doesn't work. Ask "did you violate any policies?" and the answer is always "no." This is verified experimentally.
Two independent A/B tests, identical agents, same task:
MultiEdit is handled identically — each file in the batch is gated individually.
SkillSignal prompt templates
These prompts were written by SkillSignal from the source structure; they are not upstream text.
Task-start prompt
Confirm source fit, inputs, and outputs before acting.
Use gateguard to help me with: [specific task]. Context: [files, data, or background]. Constraints: [environment, scope, and prohibited actions]. Before acting, check the pinned SKILL.md and explain which sections apply, what inputs are still missing, and what you will deliver.
Source-guided execution
Make the Agent explicitly follow the key extracted sections.
Apply the pinned gateguard source to [task]. Pay particular attention to these source sections: “Quick Start”, “When to Activate”, “Core Concept”, “Evidence”, “Gate Types”. Preserve the important decision at each step. Mark facts not covered by the source as “needs confirmation” instead of inventing them. Then verify the result against my acceptance criteria: [criteria].
Result-review prompt
Check omissions, permissions, and source drift before delivery.
Review the current gateguard result: (1) does it satisfy the original task; (2) were any applicable steps or limits in the pinned SKILL.md missed; (3) did it perform any unauthorized file, command, network, or data action; and (4) which conclusions remain unverified? List issues first, then fix only what the source or user authorization supports.
Output checklist
The task matches the purpose documented in the SKILL.md.
The source section “Quick Start” has been checked.
The source section “When to Activate” has been checked.
The source section “Core Concept” has been checked.
The source section “Evidence” has been checked.
Inputs, constraints, and acceptance criteria are explicit.
Unverified facts, compatibility, and outcome claims are clearly marked.
Any file, command, network, or data action has been reviewed.
Choose a different workflow
Fact-forcing gate that blocks Edit/Write/Bash (including MultiEdit) and demands concrete investigation (importers, data schemas, user instruction) before allowing the action. Measurably improves output quality by +2.25 points vs ungated agents.
A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detail强制事实的门控,阻止编辑/写入/Bash(包括MultiEdit),并要求在允许操作之前进行具体调查(导入器、数据模式、用户指令)。与无门控代理相比,可测量地将输出质量提高2.25分。
A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailWhen the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
A separate implementation from coreyhaines31/marketingskills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailFAQ
A PreToolUse hook that forces Claude to investigate before editing. Instead of self-evaluation ("are you sure?"), it demands concrete facts. The act of investigation creates awareness that self-evaluation never did.
The catalog detected this source-specific install command: npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "docs/ja-JP/skills/gateguard". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.
Quality breakdown
Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.
Compare before choosing
These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.
Fact-forcing gate that blocks Edit/Write/Bash (including MultiEdit) and demands concrete investigation (importers, data schemas, user instruction) before allowing the action. Measurably improves output quality by +2.25 points vs ungated agents.
强制事实的门控,阻止编辑/写入/Bash(包括MultiEdit),并要求在允许操作之前进行具体调查(导入器、数据模式、用户指令)。与无门控代理相比,可测量地将输出质量提高2.25分。
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
Grounded design brief from the adopted corpus — style, WCAG-checked color tokens, typography, layout pattern, anti-patterns. Use on ui-design-brief or any which-style/palette/font/chart decision.
Use BEFORE writing or editing any non-trivial UI — inventories components, design tokens, shadcn primitives, and reusable patterns into state.ui_audit. Hard gate for the ui directive set.
A PreToolUse hook that forces Claude to investigate before editing. Instead of self-evaluation ("are you sure?"), it demands concrete facts. The act of investigation creates awareness that self-evaluation never did.
LLM self-evaluation doesn't work. Ask "did you violate any policies?" and the answer is always "no." This is verified experimentally.
But asking "list every file that imports this module" forces the LLM to run Grep and Read. The investigation itself creates context that changes the output.
Three-stage gate:
1. DENY — block the first Edit/Write/Bash attempt
2. FORCE — tell the model exactly which facts to gather
3. ALLOW — permit retry after facts are presented
No competitor does all three. Most stop at deny.
Two independent A/B tests, identical agents, same task:
| Task | Gated | Ungated | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analytics module | 8.0/10 | 6.5/10 | +1.5 |
| Webhook validator | 10.0/10 | 7.0/10 | +3.0 |
| Average | 9.0 | 6.75 | +2.25 |
Both agents produce code that runs and passes tests. The difference is design depth.
MultiEdit is handled identically — each file in the batch is gated individually.
Before editing {file_path}, present these facts:
1. List ALL files that import/require this file (search the tree — Glob/Grep, or find/grep via Bash)
2. List the public functions/classes affected by this change
3. If this file reads/writes data files, show field names, structure,
and date format (use redacted or synthetic values, not raw production data)
4. Quote the user's current instruction verbatim
Before creating {file_path}, present these facts:
1. Name the file(s) and line(s) that will call this new file
2. Confirm no existing file serves the same purpose (search the tree — Glob/Grep, or find/grep via Bash)
3. If this file reads/writes data files, show field names, structure,
and date format (use redacted or synthetic values, not raw production data)
4. Quote the user's current instruction verbatim
Triggers on: rm -rf, git reset --hard, git push --force, drop table, etc.
1. List all files/data this command will modify or delete
2. Write a one-line rollback procedure
3. Quote the user's current instruction verbatim
1. The current user request in one sentence
2. What this specific command verifies or produces
The hook at scripts/hooks/gateguard-fact-force.js is included in this plugin. Enable it via hooks.json.
If GateGuard blocks setup or repair work, start the session with
ECC_GATEGUARD=off. For hook-level control, keep using
ECC_DISABLED_HOOKS with the GateGuard hook ID.
pip install gateguard-ai
gateguard init
This adds .gateguard.yml for per-project configuration (custom messages, ignore paths, gate toggles).
%Y/%m/%d %H:%M. Checking data structure (with redacted values) prevents this entire class of bugs..gateguard.yml to ignore paths like .venv/, node_modules/, .git/.safety-guard — Runtime safety checks (complementary, not overlapping)code-reviewer — Post-edit review (GateGuard is pre-edit investigation)