Loading...
Loading...
Found 292 Skills
Creates new Architecture Decision Record (ADR) documents for significant architectural changes using a consistent template and repository-aware naming and storage guidance. Use when a user or agent decides on an architectural change, needs to document technical rationale, or wants to add a new ADR to the project history.
Creates an Architecture Decision Record following the Nygard format to document significant technical decisions, their context, and consequences. Use when making technical choices that affect system architecture, technology selection, or development patterns.
Expert Architecture Decision Record (ADR) creation and lifecycle management based on Olaf Zimmermann's methodology. Use when creating ADRs, reviewing architectural decisions, evaluating decision readiness, writing MADR templates, assessing decision quality, or managing ADR logs. Covers the full lifecycle from readiness (START criteria) through creation, MADR formatting, completion (ECADR criteria), and ongoing maintenance.
Create a new Architecture Decision Record with sequential numbering and AgentDB registration
Gather project context before drafting an ADR — business domain, system landscape, existing ADRs, related repos, LikeC4 model. Run BEFORE draft-adr when the architect is new to the system or context is thin. Back-and-forth Q&A with zero hallucination; every fact confirmed by the human before it counts.
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
Split a 2x2 sprite sheet into four PNGs.
Beeper Desktop CLI for chats, messages, search, and reminders.
Write a structured architecture decision document — an RFC / design doc / technical doc that records *why* a non-trivial technical choice was made, not just what was built. Follows a six-part method: contextualize for a newcomer, state the architecturally-relevant requirements, design components against them with static + dynamic diagrams, weigh every alternative by pros / cons / risks (each risk with impact, probability, mitigation, contingency), record the decision and how it was made, then conclude and communicate. Writes in the language of the request. Reach for it whenever someone is choosing between technical options or documenting one — "write an RFC", "design doc", "architecture decision", "ADR", "tradeoff analysis", "technical documentation of an implementation", "help me decide between X and Y" — even if they never say "RFC". Also fits the retrospective variant: documenting an implementation after the fact (lessons learned, version history).
Clarify or discuss a proposed task, plan, design update, or ADR by resolving the highest-value unresolved decisions, decision criteria, trade-offs, and option boundaries until the inputs are ready for task creation, task planning, task/design updates, ADR writing, or safe implementation continuation. Use this as the default path when the user asks to clarify, discuss criteria, compare options, stress-test a design, or otherwise resolve material unresolved questions before proceeding. When clarification ends, resume the invoking workflow. It may also be used for general grilling when explicitly selected or when no other default grilling skill is available.
Use this skill whenever a lawyer or mediator needs help analyzing a dispute for mediation purposes. This includes: reviewing case materials (pleadings, contracts, correspondence, evidence) to identify issues in dispute, summarizing each party's position and interests, conducting legal analysis of the key issues, proposing mediation strategies or settlement directions, and preparing for mediation sessions. Trigger this skill when the user mentions 'mediation', 'dispute analysis', 'settlement', 'dispute resolution', 'identify issues in dispute', 'party positions', 'mediation brief', 'case analysis for mediation', 'ADR', 'mediation preparation', 'caucus strategy', 'settlement options', or any request to analyze a conflict between two or more parties with the goal of finding resolution. Also trigger when the user uploads case files and asks for a structured breakdown of who wants what, what the core disagreements are, or how the case might settle. Even if the user doesn't explicitly say 'mediation', trigger when the context involves analyzing opposing positions in a dispute with a resolution-oriented (rather than litigation-oriented) goal.
Applies and explains code conventions across TypeScript, React, C#, and Markdown. Enforces naming rules, file naming patterns, TSDoc and XML doc standards, inline comment intent (the *why*, not the *what*), code structure, error handling, async patterns, and dead code policy. Also enforces ADR and contributor doc decisions, and flags decisions that appear stale or misaligned with current tooling. USE FOR: convention questions, code review against project standards, applying naming rules, auditing intent comments, checking TSDoc completeness, enforcing recorded ADR decisions, and flagging stale architectural decisions. DO NOT USE FOR: security vulnerability scanning, performance profiling, runtime debugging, or generating net-new code without a review target.