Loading...
Loading...
Found 156 Skills
Consult external AIs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, OpenAI Codex, Claude) for second opinions. Use for debugging failures, architectural decisions, security validation, or need fresh perspective with synthesis.
Multi-path parallel product analysis with cross-model test-time compute scaling. Spawns parallel agents (Claude Code agent teams + Codex CLI) to explore product from multiple perspectives, then synthesizes findings into actionable optimization plans. Can invoke competitors-analysis for competitive benchmarking. Use when "product audit", "self-review", "发布前审查", "产品分析", "analyze our product", "UX audit", or "信息架构审计".
Use this skill for multi-model AI code review. Trigger whenever the user asks to review code changes, audit a diff, check code quality, review a PR, review commits, or review uncommitted changes before pushing or merging. Also trigger when they say 'code review', 'review my changes', 'check this before I merge', or want multiple perspectives on code. Runs Codex and Claude reviews in parallel, then synthesizes a unified report. Do NOT use for reviewing documentation, markdown, or non-code files, or for trivial single-line changes.
Full closed-loop QA combining issue discovery and software testing. Scout -> Strategist -> Generator -> Executor -> Analyst with multi-perspective scanning, progressive test layers, GC loops, and quality scoring. Supports discovery, testing, and full QA modes.
Comprehensively evaluate the overall security of an application from two perspectives: attackers (Red Team) and defenders (Blue Team). Run two agents in parallel → output an integrated report via review-aggregator. Use this when you want to "understand the overall security status of the application", "identify vulnerabilities from an attacker's perspective", or "verify that there are no gaps in the defense system". Use security-hardening for addressing specific vulnerabilities, and security-audit-quick for fast detection of known patterns.
Apply Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats methodology to software testing for comprehensive quality analysis. Use when designing test strategies, conducting test retrospectives, analyzing test failures, evaluating testing approaches, or facilitating testing discussions. Each hat provides a distinct testing perspective: facts (White), risks (Black), benefits (Yellow), creativity (Green), emotions (Red), and process (Blue).
Review local git changes from 8 expert perspectives using multi-agent team orchestration. Produces a consolidated report with Critical/Important/Nice-to-have severity levels. Lightweight pre-commit or pre-push quality gate — no PR or branch push required. Use when the user asks to review local changes, check changes before committing, get a team review of working tree changes, or run a pre-commit review. Trigger phrases include "review local", "review my changes", "review local changes", "pre-commit review", "review before commit", "review before push", "team review my changes", "check my changes", "review working tree", "local code review", "review diff", "review my diff".
Orchestrate a specialized software development agent team. Receive user requests, classify task type, select the matching workflow, delegate each step to specialist agents via the Agent tool, and assemble the final output. Use when the user needs multi-step software development involving architecture, implementation, testing, security review, or code review. Also use for production incident investigation — when the user reports a live system issue, service outage, pod crash, data anomaly, or needs root cause analysis using kubectl, psql, argocd, or docker. Trigger this skill whenever a task involves more than one concern (e.g., "add a new endpoint" needs BA + Architect + Developer + QA + Security), when the user mentions team coordination, agent delegation, or when the work clearly benefits from multiple specialist perspectives rather than a single implementation pass.
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.
Use when users provide vague, underspecified, or unclear requests where they need help defining WHAT they actually want - across ANY domain (writing, analysis, code, documentation, proposals, reports, presentations, creative work). Trigger aggressively when users express VAGUE GOALS ("make this better", "improve our X", "figure out what to include", "I don't know where to start", "kinda lost on what to do", "not sure what this means"), UNDEFINED SUCCESS ("should look professional", "explain this clearly", "make it convincing", "whatever works best", missing constraints/audience/format), COMMUNICATION UNCLEAR ("how do I explain/communicate this", "my team gets confused when I describe it", "help me figure out what to ask about X"), AMBIGUOUS REQUIREMENTS ("analyze the data" without saying what to look for, "improve documentation" without saying how, "make it more robust" without defining robustness, any request with multiple valid interpretations), or META-PROMPTING ("optimize this prompt", "improve my prompt", "make this clearer", "review my instructions", learning about prompt frameworks like CO-STAR/RISEN/RODES, understanding what makes prompts effective). Trigger for non-technical users and ANY situation where the request needs refinement, structure, or clarification before execution can begin. When in doubt about whether a request is clear enough - trigger.
Run a comprehensive multi-perspective code review on current changes. Activates the Review Council (security, quality, documentation, domain review) and runs automated security scanning. Use before creating a pull request or when you want a thorough review of your work.
Run a Virtual Think Tank — a structured multi-persona debate — before planning or making architectural/design/strategic decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is about to plan a system, make a technology choice, evaluate trade-offs, decide on an approach, or faces any decision where multiple perspectives would sharpen the outcome. Also trigger when the user says "think tank", "debate this", "perspectives on", "trade-offs", "should I use X or Y", "help me decide", "before we plan", or asks for pros/cons of competing approaches. This skill should run BEFORE any implementation planning begins — it produces a structured analysis that feeds into better plans.