Loading...
Loading...
Found 1,536 Skills
Content release risk inspection for creators. Check titles, main texts, image texts, subtitles, voiceovers, comments, account profiles, and video frames of we-media, social media, and content platforms sentence by sentence. Separately judge what the platform's machine may identify and what substantive problems exist in the content itself, and provide specific locations and minimal modification actions; when it is necessary to clarify the contextual boundaries of the video, additionally generate accurate three-line on-screen text. Use this when users ask questions like "Check sensitive words", "Pre-release risk screening", "Where might this content violate rules", "Can I post this on Xiaohongshu", "What statement should be put on the video". Retain strong opinions, emotional tension, personal style, and communication hooks.
One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.
Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.
Author, audit, and improve Grafana SKILL.md files against Anthropic's published Agent Skills guidance and the four-dimension rubric the grafana/skills CI gate uses (conciseness, actionability, workflow clarity, progressive disclosure). Applies the canonical SKILL.md structure (YAML frontmatter + body + references/ + scripts/ + assets/), the "pushy description" trigger pattern, the three-level progressive-disclosure model, and the validate-fix-rerun feedback loop. Use when creating a new skill in this repo, when reviewing a skill PR, when a skill's Tessl review score is below 75 (the merge gate), when a skill's description isn't getting picked up by agents, when restructuring a long SKILL.md into a bundle, or when the user asks how to write, improve, optimize, audit, or fix a skill - even if they don't say "skill" explicitly (e.g. "this isn't triggering", "Tessl scored this 72", "split this doc").
Use when creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization - applies RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle to process documentation by running baseline without skill, writing to address failures, iterating to close loopholes
Dependency health report for .NET solutions: outdated NuGet packages, vulnerable versions, and commercial-license traps (MediatR, MassTransit, FluentAssertions, AutoMapper) — powered by the get_nuget_packages MCP tool. Invoke when: "outdated packages", "check dependencies", "stale packages", "package audit", "dependency health", "are my packages up to date", "license check", "vulnerable packages", "nuget audit".
Pick the right Lightning Base Component (`lightning-*`) for a given UI task, retrieve its full API (props, methods, events, slots) from the bundled per-component reference, and wire it into an LWC (LWC `.html`, `.js`, and `.css` files) without breaking SLDS. Use this skill when users say "I need a Lightning modal / datatable / combobox / record form", ask which `lightning-*` component fits a use case, want a shortlist of LBC candidates, are about to hand-roll a UI that a base component already provides, or are editing an LWC bundle's `.html` / `.js` / `.css` and need to select or wire a base component. Also triggers on "Lightning base component", "LBC", "lightning-combobox", "lightning-datatable", "use `lightning-` tag". DO NOT TRIGGER for applying SLDS design tokens, blueprints, or styling guidance in general — that is `design-systems-slds-apply`; this skill only selects and wires `lightning-*` base components.
Analyzes codebase against standards and generates refactoring tasks for ring:dev-cycle.
Gate 2 sub-skill - validates uncertain mappings from Gate 1 and confirms all field specifications through testing.
Development cycle validation gate (Gate 5) - validates all acceptance criteria are met and requires explicit user approval before completion.
Code-reviews Pluggy API integrations against Pluggy's official documentation (queried in real time via the Pluggy MCP, with a web fallback to docs.pluggy.ai when the MCP isn't connected) and returns a diagnostic report (✅/❌/⚠️) with file, line, and the code fix for each issue. Use WHENEVER the dev uploads integration files and asks to review, analyze, diagnose, or validate their Pluggy integration — or says things like "review my integration", "check my Pluggy code", "is this ready for production?", "Pluggy Doctor", "check my webhooks", "is my integration secure?", or the Portuguese variants "analisa minha integração", "revisa meu código da Pluggy", "tá tudo certo pra ir pra produção?", "checa meus webhooks", "minha integração tá segura?". Also trigger when the dev pastes/uploads code that clearly calls the Pluggy API (connect_token, GET /items, item/created webhooks, clientUserId, etc.) and wants to know if it's correct, even without saying "Pluggy Doctor". This skill is for REVIEWING existing code, not writing an integration from scratch.
Three-axis review of a diff against a fixed point: Standards (does it follow this repo's coding standards?), Spec (does it match the originating issue/PRD?), and Stability (were the spec's property-based tests shipped?). Runs axes as parallel sub-agents.