Loading...
Loading...
Found 30 Skills
Trigger: Called when a task is completed, enters phase acceptance, receives critical feedback, or repeated similar errors require systematic correction; common signals include review, audit, retrospective, quality check, error correction and retrospective. Trigger after delivery or at a review checkpoint when quality must be examined honestly and errors must be corrected without defensiveness. Use this skill for structured self-review, feedback processing, and continuous correction.
P7 Senior Engineer mode — solution-driven execution under P8 supervision. Use when user says 'P7模式', '方案驱动', or when spawned as sub-task executor by P8. Produces: implementation plan + code + 3-question self-review, delivered via [P7-COMPLETION].
Guides pre-writing planning for academic papers with 4 structured steps: story design (task-challenge-insight-contribution-advantage), experiment planning (comparisons + ablations), figure design (pipeline + teaser), and 4-week timeline management. Includes counterintuitive planning tactics (write a mock rejection letter to identify weaknesses before writing, narrow before broad claims, design ablations first). Use when: user wants to plan a paper before writing, design story/contributions, plan experiments, create figure sketches, set a writing timeline, or write a pre-emptive rejection letter for planning purposes. Do NOT use for actual writing (use paper-writing), running experiments (use experiment-pipeline), self-reviewing a finished draft (use paper-review), or finding research problems (use research-ideation).
Human reviewer self-review for backend PRs — naming, complexity, DB schema, test design, type precision. Use when user says "review my PR", "check my PR", "human review", or wants design/readability feedback. Applies to any TypeScript backend; pair with pr-review-frontend for full-stack PRs.
Iterative self-review loop after implementing a plan. Re-read changed code with fresh eyes, fix issues found, re-run quality checks, repeat until clean. For UI work, includes visual verification (view the rendered page). Use after evanflow-executing-plans completes; on success, report and stop — the user decides what's next.
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
Use when doing dev-stage self-review on the current branch before pushing or opening a PR — runs an auto-loop of codex review (cross-model, OpenAI) + per-finding fix + re-review until findings converge or stop conditions fire. Codex follows pr-review's multi-role methodology (security / staff-engineer / sdet / spec-auditor). Triggers — 'self review', 'self-review', '自己 review', '自我 review', 'cross-model review', 'pre-push review', 'review and fix my branch'. NOT for live PR review with sticky/inline comments (use pr-review), NOT for managed PR babysitting (use pr-babysit), NOT for first-time review without intent to fix (use mode=review-only opt-in).
Guides writing effective rebuttals after receiving peer review feedback. Covers review diagnosis (score-driven color-coding), response strategy (champion identification, common-theme consolidation), tactical writing (18 rules), and counterintuitive rebuttal principles. Use when: user received reviewer scores/comments, needs to write a rebuttal or author response, wants to respond to specific criticism (e.g. 'limited novelty', 'missing baselines'), mentions 'rebuttal', 'reviewer comments', 'author response', or 'respond to reviewers'. Do NOT use for pre-submission self-review (use paper-review instead).
Workflow for executing implementation tasks. Use this skill when you need to: (1) Execute a prepared implementation plan (2) Implement tasks sequentially based on dependency resolution (3) For each task: implement → verify → self-review → external review This skill enforces: (a) dependency-based task execution, (b) per-task review cycle.
Turn vague "what did I do?" into evidence-backed impact statements for performance reviews, self-reviews, promotion packets, and weekly updates. Uniquely mines Copilot CLI session logs to reconstruct forgotten work, plus git commits and GitHub PRs. Enforces a 3-part impact contract (action → result → evidence). Works standalone with zero dependencies. Trigger for: "brag", "log work", "what did I do", "backfill my work history", "performance review", "self-review", "self assessment", "write impact statement", "review prep", "promo packet", "promotion case", "weekly update", "status report", "accomplishments", "what did I ship", "I forgot to log my work", "summarize my work", "track my wins", "what should I highlight", "end of half", "career growth", "work journal", or any request to document, summarize, or organize work accomplishments.
Generate a single-file interactive HTML code-review artifact for a GitHub PR. Fetches the diff via the gh CLI, performs an honest severity-coded self-review, and renders an artifact with: collapsible per-file diffs with colored inline annotations, severity filter chips, per-finding checkboxes, and a "Create feedback prompt" modal that aggregates the checked items into a paste-ready follow-up prompt ending with "Please address this feedback. Address each individual item in its own conventional commit." Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a pull request visually, asks for an HTML or static review artifact, says "review PR", "review this PR", "build a PR review", wants color-coded findings, feedback aggregation, or a review file they can share — even if they don't explicitly say "HTML". Also trigger on "code review artifact", "interactive review", "feedback prompt for a PR", or when the user mentions reviewing a specific PR number.
Post-completion self-review for coding agents that runs simplify, harden, and micro-documentation passes on non-trivial code changes. Use when: a coding task is complete in a general agent session and you want a bounded quality and security sweep before signaling done. For CI pipeline execution, use simplify-and-harden-ci.