Loading...
Loading...
Found 266 Skills
Multi-Model Collaboration — Invoke gemini-agent and codex-agent for auxiliary analysis **Trigger Scenarios** (Proactive Use): - In-depth code analysis: algorithm understanding, performance bottleneck identification, architecture sorting - Large-scale exploration: 5+ files, module dependency tracking, call chain tracing - Complex reasoning: solution evaluation, logic verification, concurrent security analysis - Multi-perspective decision-making: requiring analysis from different angles before comprehensive judgment **Non-Trigger Scenarios**: - Simple modifications (clear changes in 1-2 files) - File searching (use Explore or Glob/Grep) - Read/write operations on known paths **Core Principle**: You are the decision-maker and executor, while external models are consultants.
Replace generic perspectives with domain-specific expert roles selected dynamically per request. Automatically picks the 3 most relevant experts from a role pool (Security, Performance, UX, Cost, DX, Architecture, etc.) based on the task context.
Schedule "research + content production" tasks in A/B/C levels. First define the audience, goal, carrier and perspective, then follow the Research→Synthesis→Content pipeline to output publishable content and evidence chains. It is suitable for writing tasks that require credible conclusions, stable structure and reusable material precipitation.
Analyzes Rails code quality, architecture, and patterns without modifying code. Use when the user wants a code review, quality analysis, architecture audit, or when user mentions review, audit, code quality, anti-patterns, or SOLID principles. WHEN NOT: Actually implementing fixes (use specialist agents), writing new tests (use rspec-agent), or generating new features.
Multi-perspective code review strategy covering architecture, security, performance, and quality. Follow when reviewing code or analyzing changes.
Channel the mental models, decision frameworks, and communication style of real experts (Steve Jobs, DHH, Rich Hickey, etc.) to approach problems the way they would. Use when the user says "summon", "channel", "what would [name] think", "ask [name]", or wants an expert perspective on a problem.
Search through a personal material library with over 1800 real experiences and perspectives to add a human touch to content. Use this when users mention "personal experience", "real cases", "materials", or "human touch".
Dialogue between Wang Yangming × Laozi × Alan Watts. A multi-role discussion from the perspectives of Heart-Mind Philosophy and Taoism, with Claude as the judge. Triggers: /dada-chatroom-heart, /心学聊天室, "心学聊天室" Heart-mind philosophy chatroom. Wang Yangming × Laozi × Alan Watts debate, Claude as judge. Trigger: /dada-chatroom-heart, /心学聊天室, "心学聊天室"
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
Use this skill when the user asks for creative thinking (including naming it or directing use/apply/run with obvious misspellings; decisive) or wants divergent ideation—fluency, flexible perspectives, novel combinations, and elaboration, with optional light convergence. Use when they want fresh ideas, blue-sky options, reframes, or more variety before committing, including casual or messy prompts. Skip when they want a single delivered answer with no exploration, audit-only teardown with no generation asked for, or purely mechanical execution.
Turn a vague, messy, or multi-part user ask into a clean, self-contained prompt that a fresh agent could execute without further questions. Interview the user one question at a time — walking down the decision tree, branching on each answer — until the prompt is tight, then output the final prompt as the deliverable. Trigger eagerly: any voice-dictated input, filler-heavy prose, underspecified references ("the thing", "that script"), multi-part requests, or any plan the user wants stress-tested. The skill itself can be skipped for trivial one-line requests where producing a prompt artifact would be pure ceremony — but once invoked, always produce the prompt, even if execution looks trivial.
Two-round debate protocol where perspectives challenge each other before consensus. Round 1 presents independent positions, Round 2 allows counter-arguments and rebuttals. Produces battle-tested decisions for high-stakes choices.