Loading...
Loading...
Found 582 Skills
Luban - Skill Polishing Workshop. Transform a "usable Skill" into a public Skill asset that is "understandable, installable, shareable, verifiable, and continuously evolvable". The methodology consists of five craftsman-like steps: 1. Material Inspection: First challenge whether the premise of this Skill is valid; directly state if the "material" is not worth polishing. 2. Peer Research: Search for similar Skills online to clarify its position in the ecosystem. 3. Dimension Measurement: Evaluate using three metrics - structure, actual testing, and live verification (live verification means reconciling with real running outputs; a green CI can be deceptive). 4. Iterative Refinement: Freeze the original version as a baseline; only retain changes that pass the verification gate, otherwise revert. Try to institutionalize verification methods as tools and rules in the repository. 5. Post-Release Iteration: Release is not the end; maintain a benchmark observation list, and start the next iteration based on real feedback. This tool is used when users want to upgrade, optimize, polish, productize, or release their self-developed Skills. The final deliverables include a structured Skill Polishing Report, directly replaceable rewritten segments, and a shareable "Graduation Certificate" result card that can be screenshot. Trigger phrases include but are not limited to: "Let Luban take a look at this skill", "Polish at Luban's Workshop", "Polish my skill", "Upgrade my skill", "Optimize this skill", "Skill check-up", "Skill audit", "Productize my skill", "How to release this skill", "Benchmark against similar skills", "Why no one installs my skill", "Help me publish my skill to GitHub/ClawHub", "Improve SKILL.md". Even if users only provide a Skill directory, GitHub repository link, or a segment of SKILL.md saying "Help me figure out how to modify it", it should be triggered as long as the context is about making the Skill more usable and shareable. Do NOT use this for creating a new Skill from scratch (use skill-creator), regular code review (use code-review), or rewriting ordinary prompts unrelated to Skill assets.
Review code architecture for maintainability, catch structural issues before they become debtUse when "Reviewing pull requests with structural changes, Planning refactoring work, Evaluating new feature architecture, Assessing technical debt, Before major releases, When code feels "hard to change", architecture, code-review, refactoring, design-patterns, technical-debt, dependencies, maintainability" mentioned.
Comprehensive pre-merge validation checklist for Python/React pull requests. Use before approving or merging any PR. Covers code quality checks (linting, formatting, type checking), test coverage requirements, documentation updates, migration safety, API contract compatibility, accessibility compliance, bundle size impact, and deployment readiness. Provides a systematic checklist that ensures nothing is missed before merge. Does NOT cover security review depth (use code-review-security).
Use when explicitly asked to run the code-reviewer subagent or when another skill requires the code-reviewer agent card.
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security).
Dispatch code-reviewer agent for two-stage review. Use after completing implementation tasks.
Use when another skill or agent needs a review panel assembled, retained, or converged — invoked by /review-loop, /plan-review, and code-reviewer, not directly by users.
Refresh stale learning docs and pattern docs under docs/solutions/ by reviewing them against the current codebase, then updating, consolidating, replacing, or deleting the drifted ones. Trigger this skill when the user asks to refresh, audit, sweep, clean up, or consolidate stale docs in docs/solutions/ (phrases like "refresh my learnings", "audit docs/solutions/", "clean up stale learnings", "consolidate overlapping docs", "compound refresh", "/ce-compound-refresh"), or when ce-compound has just captured a new learning and flagged a specific older doc in docs/solutions/ as now inaccurate or superseded — invoke with the narrow scope hint ce-compound provides. Also trigger when the user points at a specific learning or pattern doc under docs/solutions/ and calls it stale, outdated, overlapping, or drifted. Do not trigger for general refactor, migration, debugging, or code-review work unless the user has explicitly directed attention to docs/solutions/ itself.
WHEN: Performance analysis, bundle size optimization, rendering, Core Web Vitals, code splitting WHAT: Bundle analysis + large dependency detection + re-render issues + useMemo/useCallback suggestions + LCP/FID/CLS improvements WHEN NOT: Code quality → code-reviewer, Security → security-scanner
This skill should be used when reviewing pull requests, performing comprehensive code review, analyzing code changes before merge, or when the user asks for thorough/ultra-critical code review. Performs EXTREMELY CRITICAL 6-pass analysis identifying runtime failures, code consistency issues, architectural problems, environment compatibility risks, and verification strategies. Posts structured review as GitHub PR comment. Use when user asks to "review PR", "review this code", "review changes", "check this PR", "analyze PR", "post review", or for Phase 3 of devflow. Supports parallel review mode with multiplier (code-review-3, code-review 6X) for consensus-based reviews. This is an ultra-critical reviewer that does not let things slip and desires only perfection.
Git branching strategies, conflict resolution, rebase workflows, monorepo patterns, and advanced operations like cherry-pick, bisect, and reflog recovery. Activate on "git", "branching strategy", "merge conflict", "rebase", "cherry-pick", "monorepo git", "git bisect", "git reflog", "squash commits". NOT for GitHub Actions CI/CD (use github-actions-pipeline-builder), GitHub API/webhooks, or PR review processes (use code-review-checklist).
Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Practices: receiving feedback, requesting reviews, verification gates. Capabilities: technical evaluation, evidence-based claims, PR review, subagent-driven review, completion verification. Actions: review, evaluate, verify, validate code changes. Keywords: code review, PR review, pull request, technical feedback, review feedback, completion claim, verification, evidence-based, code quality, review request, technical rigor, subagent review, code-reviewer, review gate, merge criteria. Use when: receiving code review feedback, completing major features, making completion claims, requesting systematic reviews, validating before merge, preventing false completion claims.