Loading...
Loading...
Found 80 Skills
Use this skill when you need security analysis of Solidity smart contract code. User cases: auditing Solidity contracts, identifying re-entrancy bugs, detecting access control issues, reviewing unsafe external calls, evaluating code before deployment, gate-checking contracts in transaction pipelines, or performing security assessments.
Code-verification session with the rubber duck — user explains code just written, finds edge cases, fixes planted bugs. Use after implementing a feature, or when they say "duck verify", "재확인해줘". Not for plan review (/duck-plan) or PR review (/duck-review).
AI 에이전트와 협업하는 에이전틱 개발의 범용 원칙. 분해정복, 컨텍스트 관리, 추상화 수준 선택, 자동화 철학을 정의. 모든 AI 코딩 도구에 적용 가능.
The ultimate autonomous dev pipeline. Combines wavybaby (CoVe verification, skill discovery, MCP tooling) + GSD (roadmaps, phases, plans, discovery, state tracking) + Ralph (autonomous loop with circuit breakers). Generates a PRD, equips itself with the best tools, bootstraps a full GSD .planning/ structure, then runs Ralph to autonomously execute each plan with CoVe-verified code until the milestone is complete.
A comprehensive verification system for Claude Code sessions.
TDD Skill for Team Workflows (Phase 3). Before writing any implementation code, you must first write a failing test and verify the failure, then write the minimal implementation until it passes, and finally refactor and re-test.
Defense-in-depth verification before declaring any task complete. Run tests, check build, validate changed files, verify no regressions. Applies 4-level adversarial artifact verification (EXISTS > SUBSTANTIVE > WIRED > DATA FLOWS) with goal-backward framing. Use before saying "done", "fixed", or "complete" on any code change. Use for "verify", "make sure it works", "check before committing", or "validate changes". Do NOT use for debugging (use systematic-debugging) or code review (use systematic-code-review).
Verify your own completed code changes using the repo's existing infrastructure and an independent evaluator context. Use after implementing a change when you need to run unit or integration tests, check build or lint gates, prove the real surface works with evidence, and challenge the changed code for clarity, deduplication, and maintainability. If the repo is not verifiable yet, hand off to `agent-readiness`; if you are reviewing someone else's code, use `review`.
Issue Workflow Stage 3——Fix code precisely based on confirmed root cause and solution, verify the effect, and document it in {slug}-fix-note.md. This is the final stage of the issue workflow—no verification loop means the workflow is incomplete. Two entry points: the standard path is triggered from easysdd-issue-analyze (with existing {slug}-analysis.md), and the quick path is triggered directly from easysdd-issue-report (without {slug}-analysis.md, as the root cause was determined by AI reading code during the report stage). Trigger scenarios: user says 'Start fixing the bug', 'Fix according to analysis', 'Start modifying code'. During repair, only modify the files stated in the solution; do not optimize casually or introduce new abstractions—these actions will make the scope spread to untraceable levels.
Automatically resolve merge conflicts in the current PR. Fetches the base branch, attempts a merge, identifies conflicting files, analyzes both sides, resolves conflicts, verifies locally, and pushes. Use when PR has merge conflicts detected by poll-pr-status.sh.
Load automatically when user asks to learn Medusa development (e.g., "teach me how to build with medusa", "guide me through medusa", "I want to learn medusa"). Interactive guided tutorial where Claude acts as a coding bootcamp instructor, teaching step-by-step with checkpoints and verification.
When reporting that work is completed, fixed, or ready for use before submitting or creating a PR - you need to run verification commands and confirm the output before making any success claims; evidence always precedes assertion