Loading...
Loading...
Found 127 Skills
You MUST use this when a completed or partially committed implementation needs an independent code review against explicit requirements, a defined task scope, and the actual Git diff, including committed and working-tree changes.
Adversarial verification of finished work. Treats any "done" as a set of claims, then re-runs the claimed verifications, diffs what actually changed, detects weakened tests and false completion claims, and delivers an evidence-based verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS / REFUTED). Use after any agent or model claims work is complete - "/fable-judge", "judge this work", "verify what it did", "did that actually work?". Also runs the fable-method trap suite against a skill or model via "/fable-judge suite <target>".
Remove AI-generated slop introduced on this branch relative to main.
Use when reviewing current branch for bugs before pushing or merging, when wanting a thorough multi-agent review of local changes, or when preparing work for human review. Not for codebase structure, not for code style, and not for fixing what it finds.
Perform an independent, evidence-grounded review of git diffs against requested specifications, architectural invariants, and code standards. Use when reviewing pull requests, inspecting code changes before merge, auditing diffs for regressions, or performing pre-commit sanity reviews — even if the user does not explicitly say "fable-review" (e.g. "review this diff", "check this PR", "critique my changes", "code review this branch"). Do NOT use for implementing fixes directly (use fable-tdd/fable-execute) or executing tests (use fable-verify).
Run only the tests a change can affect — diffs the branch against its base, maps changed files to affected units via the repo's test map or workspace manifest, picks tests per configured suite, runs them, and falls back to the full suite whenever the mapping is unsure. Use for "run affected tests", "test only what changed", "smart test".
Reviews a code diff (PR, branch, commit range, working tree, or a diff already in the conversation) in a fresh-context read-only subagent, because a session holding the conversation is a biased reviewer, posts its Conventional Comments findings inline and its APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT verdict to the pull request when one exists, and returns a short summary. Use when the user says "code review", or when asked to review code, a diff, or a PR, including a pasted diff, a .diff or .patch file, or a diff shown earlier; never review it inline. Not for design docs; use reviewing-design-docs. Not for a security-focused review; use reviewing-security.
Review changes since a fixed point along five independent axes: repository standards, originating spec, performance, observability, and accessibility. Use for branches, pull requests, work in progress, or requests to review since a commit, branch, tag, or merge-base.
Review every change on this branch against main across 9 perspectives, then review-deep's scripted collate, verify, and report chain over the same findings. Covers committed, staged, unstaged, and untracked work.
Reviews a git diff through reviewer subagents on each lens (big picture, detail), then checks and triages the findings and fixes clear problems. Use when the user asks for a code review, PR review, sanity check on changes, or reviews with specific or multiple models.
Generates just-in-time catching tests for changed code. Analyzes pending changes to find uncovered paths and writes focused tests that catch regressions at the moment of change. Use when the user says "generate tests", "jit tests", "test generation", "write tests for changes", or wants tests for recently modified code.
Systematically add test coverage for all local code changes using specialized review and development agents. Add tests for uncommitted changes (including untracked files), or if everything is commited, then will cover latest commit.