Loading...
Loading...
Found 1,173 Skills
Review Skill definition quality. Use when user asks to "review skill", "check skill quality", "validate skill", "lint skill", "review my skill", or wants to check if a Skill follows best practices. For execution trace analysis, use when user explicitly mentions "analyze execution", "review trace", or "evaluate execution process". Do NOT use for runtime debugging (use agent-debug skill), code review (use code-review skill), or general file validation.
Claude Code Command Selection Guide - Automatically recommend and select the right commands, agents, and skills in Claude Code. Use when: (1) user is unsure which command or tool to use, (2) needs to decide which agent/skill best fits the current task, (3) querying usage scenarios for /plan, /tdd, /compact, /loop and other commands, (4) understanding when to invoke planner, code-reviewer, build-error-resolver and other agents, (5) needs command cheat sheet or decision flowchart. Triggers: "which command to use", "which agent", "command selection", "how to use /plan", "when to use /compact", "agent selection guide", "command cheat sheet", "skill recommendation".
Creates or audits a Claude Code subagent file. Use when user says 'create an agent', 'build a subagent', 'review this agent', 'audit our agents', 'add a code-reviewer agent', or 'our agents are too broad'. Do NOT use for skills (use create-or-audit-skill), hooks (use create-or-audit-hook), or CLAUDE.md files (use create-or-audit-claude-md).
Generates a daily standup post from GitHub activity and agent session history, and posts it to the mitodl/hq Check-ins discussion. Use when asked to write, generate, or post a daily standup — fetches PR, issue, and code-review activity via the gh CLI, queries recent agent sessions, asks clarifying questions about timing and off-GitHub work, renders the standup in the team's standard format, and posts it as a discussion comment with user confirmation.
Multi-language code quality gate with auto-detection and language-specific linters. Use when user asks to "run quality checks", "quality gate", "lint all", "check everything", "pre-commit checks", or "is this code ready to commit". Use for verifying code quality across polyglot repos. Do NOT use for single-language linting (use code-linting) or comprehensive code review (use systematic-code-review).
Use when writing, fixing, editing, or refactoring TypeScript, React, or CSS code. Not for PR or diff reviews — use clean-code-reviewer for those.
Go interface design patterns: implicit interfaces, consumer-side definition, interface compliance verification, composition, the accept-interfaces-return-structs principle, and common pitfalls. Use when designing interfaces, decoupling packages, defining contracts, reviewing interface usage, or refactoring for testability. Trigger examples: "design interface", "accept interfaces return structs", "interface compliance", "consumer-side interface", "interface composition". Do NOT use for HTTP handler patterns (use go-api-design) or general code review (use go-code-review).
Read a story file and implement it. Loads the full context (story, GDD requirement, ADR guidelines, control manifest), routes to the right programmer agent for the system and engine, implements the code and test, and confirms each acceptance criterion. The core implementation skill — run after /story-readiness, before /code-review and /story-done.
Devil's Advocate stress-testing for code, architecture, PRs, and decisions. Surfaces hidden flaws through structured adversarial analysis with metacognitive depth. Use for high-stakes review, stress-testing choices, or when the user wants problems found deliberately. NOT for routine code review (use engineering:code-review). Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
Decision guide for delegating to caveman-style subagents. Tells the main thread WHEN to spawn `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit), or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of doing the work inline or using vanilla `Explore`. Subagent output is caveman-compressed so the tool-result injected back into main context is ~60% smaller — main context lasts longer across long sessions. Trigger: "delegate to subagent", "use cavecrew", "spawn investigator/builder/reviewer", "save context", "compressed agent output".