Loading...
Loading...
Found 156 Skills
Comprehensive multi-omics disease characterization integrating genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, pathway, and therapeutic layers for systems-level understanding. Produces a detailed multi-omics report with quantitative confidence scoring (0-100), cross-layer gene concordance analysis, biomarker candidates, therapeutic opportunities, and mechanistic hypotheses. Uses 80+ ToolUniverse tools across 8 analysis layers. Use when users ask about disease mechanisms, multi-omics analysis, systems biology of disease, biomarker discovery, or therapeutic target identification from a disease perspective.
Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building
Evaluate Figma designs from operator persona perspectives through design critique and user experience evaluation. Use when reviewing UX for specific user roles (e.g., air-surveillance-tech, weapons-director), conducting design reviews, or evaluating operator interfaces. Analyzes cognitive load, communication patterns, pain points, and system visibility. Works with Figma MCP (desktop/URL) and Outline docs.
Confidence scoring overlay for multi-brain decisions. Each perspective rates its own confidence (1-10) with justification. Consensus uses scores as weights, flags low-confidence areas, and surfaces uncertainty explicitly.
Two-round debate protocol where perspectives challenge each other before consensus. Round 1 presents independent positions, Round 2 allows counter-arguments and rebuttals. Produces battle-tested decisions for high-stakes choices.
Replace generic perspectives with domain-specific expert roles selected dynamically per request. Automatically picks the 3 most relevant experts from a role pool (Security, Performance, UX, Cost, DX, Architecture, etc.) based on the task context.
This skill is used when users explicitly request "review NSFC proposals", "simulate expert review", or "evaluate NSFC applications". It simulates the perspective of domain experts to conduct multi-dimensional reviews of NSFC proposals, outputting graded issues and actionable modification suggestions. ⚠️ Not applicable: when users only want to write/modify a specific section of a proposal (use the nsfc-*-writer series skills instead), only want to understand review criteria (answer directly), or have no clear "review/evaluate" intent.
Conduct deep research on any topic through structured investigation design. Use when the user needs comprehensive, multi-source analysis -- not a quick lookup. Triggers: deep research, comprehensive analysis, research report, compare X vs Y, analyze trends, investigate, or any request requiring synthesis across multiple perspectives. Do NOT use for simple questions answerable with 1-2 searches or for debugging.
Use when Claude Code needs a second opinion, verification, or deeper research on technical matters. This includes researching how a library or API works, confirming implementation approaches, verifying technical assumptions, understanding complex code patterns, or getting alternative perspectives on architectural decisions. The agent leverages the Codex CLI to provide independent analysis and validation.
Use when brainstorming, evaluating architecture choices, or comparing trade-offs where independent perspectives from different model families (Claude/Codex/Gemini) would surface blind spots
Third-party perspective analysis and improvement skills for marketing pages. Targets: Landing Pages (LP), Home Pages (HP), Pricing Pages, Feature Pages, Blogs. Integrates CRO frameworks and direct response principles (Schwartz/Hopkins/Ogilvy). Usage scenarios: (1) Page audit/analysis requests (2) Conversion improvement consultations (3) Copywriting improvements (4) A/B test design (5) Implementation prioritization. Trigger examples: "Analyze my LP", "Want to increase conversion rate", "Review pricing page", "Improve hero section", "Optimize CTA", "HP improvement proposal"
Convenes expert panels for problem-solving. Use when user mentions panel, experts, multiple perspectives, MECE, DMAIC, RAPID, Six Sigma, root cause analysis, strategic decisions, or process improvement.