Loading...
Loading...
Found 30 Skills
Generate a single-file interactive HTML code-review artifact for a GitHub PR. Fetches the diff via the gh CLI, performs an honest severity-coded self-review, and renders an artifact with: collapsible per-file diffs with colored inline annotations, severity filter chips, per-finding checkboxes, and a "Create feedback prompt" modal that aggregates the checked items into a paste-ready follow-up prompt ending with "Please address this feedback. Address each individual item in its own conventional commit." Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a pull request visually, asks for an HTML or static review artifact, says "review PR", "review this PR", "build a PR review", wants color-coded findings, feedback aggregation, or a review file they can share — even if they don't explicitly say "HTML". Also trigger on "code review artifact", "interactive review", "feedback prompt for a PR", or when the user mentions reviewing a specific PR number.
Use when doing dev-stage self-review on the current branch before pushing or opening a PR — runs an auto-loop of codex review (cross-model, OpenAI) + per-finding fix + re-review until findings converge or stop conditions fire. Codex follows pr-review's multi-role methodology (security / staff-engineer / sdet / spec-auditor). Triggers — 'self review', 'self-review', '自己 review', '自我 review', 'cross-model review', 'pre-push review', 'review and fix my branch'. NOT for live PR review with sticky/inline comments (use pr-review), NOT for managed PR babysitting (use pr-babysit), NOT for first-time review without intent to fix (use mode=review-only opt-in).
Post-completion self-review for coding agents that runs simplify, harden, and micro-documentation passes on non-trivial code changes. Use when: a coding task is complete in a general agent session and you want a bounded quality and security sweep before signaling done. For CI pipeline execution, use simplify-and-harden-ci.
Guides pre-writing planning for academic papers with 4 structured steps: story design (task-challenge-insight-contribution-advantage), experiment planning (comparisons + ablations), figure design (pipeline + teaser), and 4-week timeline management. Includes counterintuitive planning tactics (write a mock rejection letter to identify weaknesses before writing, narrow before broad claims, design ablations first). Use when: user wants to plan a paper before writing, design story/contributions, plan experiments, create figure sketches, set a writing timeline, or write a pre-emptive rejection letter for planning purposes. Do NOT use for actual writing (use paper-writing), running experiments (use experiment-pipeline), self-reviewing a finished draft (use paper-review), or finding research problems (use research-ideation).
P7 Senior Engineer mode — solution-driven execution under P8 supervision. Use when user says 'P7模式', '方案驱动', or when spawned as sub-task executor by P8. Produces: implementation plan + code + 3-question self-review, delivered via [P7-COMPLETION].
Iterative self-review loop after implementing a plan. Re-read changed code with fresh eyes, fix issues found, re-run quality checks, repeat until clean. For UI work, includes visual verification (view the rendered page). Use after evanflow-executing-plans completes; on success, report and stop — the user decides what's next.
Turn vague "what did I do?" into evidence-backed impact statements for performance reviews, self-reviews, promotion packets, and weekly updates. Uniquely mines Copilot CLI session logs to reconstruct forgotten work, plus git commits and GitHub PRs. Enforces a 3-part impact contract (action → result → evidence). Works standalone with zero dependencies. Trigger for: "brag", "log work", "what did I do", "backfill my work history", "performance review", "self-review", "self assessment", "write impact statement", "review prep", "promo packet", "promotion case", "weekly update", "status report", "accomplishments", "what did I ship", "I forgot to log my work", "summarize my work", "track my wins", "what should I highlight", "end of half", "career growth", "work journal", or any request to document, summarize, or organize work accomplishments.
[Planning] Self-review plan for validity, correctness, and best practices
Guides writing effective rebuttals after receiving peer review feedback. Covers review diagnosis (score-driven color-coding), response strategy (champion identification, common-theme consolidation), tactical writing (18 rules), and counterintuitive rebuttal principles. Use when: user received reviewer scores/comments, needs to write a rebuttal or author response, wants to respond to specific criticism (e.g. 'limited novelty', 'missing baselines'), mentions 'rebuttal', 'reviewer comments', 'author response', or 'respond to reviewers'. Do NOT use for pre-submission self-review (use paper-review instead).
Use vision models to self-review screenshots against design intent. Catches spacing issues, alignment problems, color inconsistencies, responsive bugs, and accessibility gaps. Use when reviewing designs, comparing implementations to mockups, or doing pre-ship QA.
Perform read-only reviews of code changes (`git diff`) for quality, architecture compliance, and security (OWASP Top 10) by delegating to Agent tools. Use for self-reviews before committing/creating PRs, or when requesting "review changes" or "code review". Use implement-review-pr for GitHub PR reviews.
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.