Loading...
Loading...
Found 28 Skills
Compress an artifact that has accreted into bloat — padding, over-qualification, fused sentences, walls of enumeration, adjacent restatement — down to its load-bearing density, meaning preserved. Use when prose is correct and current but has grown verbose or patched-over and you want it tight without a full rewrite.
Post-implementation cleanup of correct code. Prunes comments aggressively: deletes what restates the code, files design rationale to the commit message and wider context to the PR or an issue, collapses one mechanism explained in three places, strips issue and PR references that make a file unreadable on its own, compacts genuine gotchas, renames unclear symbols so a comment is not needed, checks the code against the project's conventions, and simplifies what is more complicated than it needs to be. Tightens docs without gutting them. Auto-applies and reports.
Use when writing or reviewing agent instructions and current-state docs — rules files (AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md), skill bodies and descriptions, prompts, and design/plan/process docs — or on request to prune a task or session file. Restates negation priming, absence declarations, stale meta-narrative, and strawman warnings as positive targets or consequences.
Clean-room rethink of existing functionality — trace what the code really does, restate it as a problem and a goal, design a solution behind a context wall where the code is unseen (web research for libraries and best practices), then judge the current implementation against that design and propose replace, graft, or keep-as-is. Use when asked whether some code is the best way to solve its problem, to rethink or redesign a module, for a second opinion on an approach, or to find a simpler, more robust, or more testable way to build something that already exists.
Verify the model's understanding of a user's instruction before spending non-trivial work. Use when a request is long, bundled, high-stakes, hard to undo, or has ambiguous scope or referents such as this, that, it, the other one, whatever is cleaner, or whichever order makes sense. Restate internally, cross-check against available context, proceed silently when resolved, and surface only a genuine surviving fork.
Turns a technical topic or a technical document (PRD, development plan, technical proposal, review minutes) into an HTML document that readers from any background can understand and retell — large diagrams, prominent key numbers, charts with legends, tables with annotated headers, and minimal jargon. Use when the user types /elintp <topic-or-document>, or asks for a plain-language explainer or restatement of a technical document aimed at readers outside the engineering team.
Restate the last message in plain human language, with no jargon.
Discipline for giving design work narrative structure that makes people care. Provides four canonical patterns — protagonist-arc, choreography, situation/complication/resolution, what-is/what-could-be — each with a goal, shape, and named pathology. Use when design work needs narrative structure, when stakeholders need to see the user's experience as a story, when presenting design rationale to non-design audiences, or when a journey, blueprint, brief, or deck feels lifeless. Trigger phrases: "what's the story here?", "tell the story", "story mode", "narrative mode". Restated inline in journey, blueprint, strategize, evaluate (and presentation when that skill ships). Refuses to smooth user data into clean arcs, manufacture strategic tension, substitute emotional appeal for evidence, assume conflict arcs are universal, or engineer stakeholder assent by shortcut.
Write or critique a user story — a small unit of user value framed from a real persona's need, not a restated task. Frames stories around who/what/why, keeps them INVEST and testable, maps them across the journey, and resists writing stories that add no clarity. Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (strict formula vs. free-form, whether to write a story at all, acceptance-criteria depth, splitting into a map, communication framing). Trigger when asked to write user stories, turn a persona or need into stories, frame requirements as stories, build a story map, apply INVEST, or review/strengthen existing stories.
Restate in your own words what you think the user's goals are and what problem they're trying to solve. Use for /in-your-own-words.
Reconcile what the numbers say with what users say, and design the study that settles it rather than restates it. Use when behavioural data and research findings point different ways. For reading the data on its own, use `behavioural-analytics`; for synthesising interviews on their own, use `affinity-diagram`.
Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE. Use when asked to verify this, prove it works, did this fix it, or show the evidence.