Loading...
Loading...
Found 9 Skills
Facilitate methodical review of proposals (technical designs, product specs, feature requests). Use when asked to "review this proposal", "give feedback on this doc", "help me review this RFC", or when presented with a document that needs structured feedback. Handles markdown files, GitHub gists/issues/PRs, and other text formats. Chunks proposals intelligently, predicts reviewer reactions, and produces feedback adapted to the proposal's format.
Force critical evaluation of proposals, requirements, or decisions by analyzing from multiple adversarial perspectives. Triggers on: accepting a proposal without pushback, 'sounds good', 'let's go with', design decisions with unstated tradeoffs, unchallenged assumptions, premature consensus. Invoke with /challenge-that.
Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.
Use when writing or reviewing NIH, NSF, or foundation grant proposals. Invoke when user mentions specific aims, R01, R21, K-series, significance, innovation, approach section, grant writing, proposal review, research strategy, or needs help with fundable hypothesis, reviewer-friendly structure, or compliance with grant guidelines.
Review and approve (or reject) pending playbook update proposals from the playbook-monitor agent and apply approved changes to the practice profile. Use when the playbook-monitor agent has surfaced proposals, when the user says "review playbook proposals", "what playbook updates are pending", or wants to step through deviation-driven playbook changes.
Critically evaluate and enhance app ideas, startup concepts, and product proposals. Use when users ask to "evaluate my idea", "review this concept", "is this a good idea", "validate my startup idea", or want honest feedback on technical feasibility and market viability. Creates/updates idea.md and validate.md and always reports GitHub links to changed files.
This skill is used when users explicitly request "review NSFC proposals", "simulate expert review", or "evaluate NSFC applications". It simulates the perspective of domain experts to conduct multi-dimensional reviews of NSFC proposals, outputting graded issues and actionable modification suggestions. ⚠️ Not applicable: when users only want to write/modify a specific section of a proposal (use the nsfc-*-writer series skills instead), only want to understand review criteria (answer directly), or have no clear "review/evaluate" intent.
Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).
Guides an Upwork client from candidates to a signed contract by searching for freelancers, reviewing proposals, shortlisting, inviting, and preparing offers. Use when a client wants to find or vet talent, review applicants to a job, shortlist or decline proposals, invite a freelancer, or send a contract offer.