Loading...
Loading...
Found 258 Skills
C# code review skill. Analyzes code quality from OOP, SOLID, GoF design pattern, modern C# features, and performance perspectives. Use before pull requests, when optimizing code, or auditing legacy codebases.
Multi-agent code review with specialized perspectives (security, performance, patterns, simplification, tests)
Compare OpenAI Codex GPT-5.3 and code-searcher responses for comprehensive dual-AI code analysis. Use when you need multiple AI perspectives on code questions.
Write WeChat Official Account articles from the perspective of an AI product manager. Covers AI product teardowns, scenario-based solutions, efficiency improvement practices, product methodologies, and industry observations. Use this when users say "Write an article about XXX", "Analyze the XXX product", or "Talk about XXX".
Converse with wisdom mentors — embody the thinking style, worldview, and philosophy of selected intellectual teachers for deep dialogue. Available mentors: Naval Ravikant (wealth, happiness, rational Buddhism), Daniel Schmachtenberger (metacrisis, civilizational design, systems thinking), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (flow, optimal experience, creativity), J. Krishnamurti (consciousness, freedom, self-inquiry), Ken Wilber (integral theory, AQAL, stages of development), Thích Viên Minh (Theravāda meditation, present reality, innate awareness), Trần Việt Quân (education, 3 Roots philosophy, kindness community), Thích Nhất Hạnh (mindfulness, interbeing, engaged Buddhism, compassion), Sư Tâm Pháp (Vipassanā, four postures meditation, direct experience, forest monk tradition), Thu Giang Nguyễn Duy Cần (Lao-Zhuang philosophy, art of living, self-education, inner courage), Minh Niệm (heart understanding, emotional healing, modern Buddhist psychology, mindful living). Use when the user wants to: (1) talk to or chat with a specific thinker/mentor, (2) get a perspective from a specific philosopher, (3) explore ideas through dialogue with a wisdom figure, (4) ask "what would [name] say about...", (5) learn a thinker's philosophy through conversation. Also supports adding new custom mentors via template.
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.
Strategic discovery of a project's capabilities from a solutions architect perspective. Deploys parallel discovery agents to map architecture, inventory features, and assess infrastructure, then synthesizes findings into a capabilities report with strategic improvement recommendations. Use when user says "explore", "what does this do", "project overview", "capabilities", "feature inventory", or asks about strategic direction.
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".
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.
Generates an evidence-calibrated product or marketing persona using the canonical v2.5 output contract. Use when shaping artifact perspective, stress-testing decisions, or framing product and GTM strategy.
Run any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.
Multi-agent QA review team for code changes. This skill should be used when the user asks to "review my code", "run QA", "qa-team", "review this branch", "code review", "check my changes", or wants a comprehensive multi-perspective code review of the current branch's changes. Spawns parallel specialist agents (security, database, reliability, compatibility, data integrity, performance, frontend, copy) that independently review the diff and produce a converged report. Also includes two generalist reviewers for convergence validation.