Loading...
Loading...
Found 1,266 Skills
Ultra-lightweight channel for refactor processes - used when changes are obviously too small to justify the full scan → design → apply three-stage workflow. AI directly identifies 1-3 low-risk optimization points, confirms with the user once, modifies in-place using classic methods, and validates itself by running tests. No scan checklist, no design documentation, no multi-step HUMAN verification required. Trigger scenarios: When the user says "quick refactor", "small refactor", "simply optimize XX function", "modify directly", "skip all those steps", and the scope of changes is clearly limited to a single function/single component, with tests available for self-validation.
Launch an isolated Claude reviewer for the current branch, a specific commit, or uncommitted changes. Uses Claude's agent runtime with worktree isolation so the review has an independent read-only view of the code before findings are reported back.
Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency, then fix any issues found.
Code review and audit system with specialized sub-skills covering SOLID principles, security, performance, architecture, error handling, testing, code smells, design patterns, and framework best practices. Generates severity-scored findings with copy-pasteable fix prompts. Strictly read-only — never modifies user code. Use when user says "review", "audit", "code review", "check my code", "security scan", "code smells", "SOLID check".
Configures and enforces SwiftLint in Swift projects using build tool plugins, run scripts, and CI. Covers .swiftlint.yml configuration, disabled_rules, opt_in_rules, only_rules, analyzer_rules, baselines, autocorrect, swiftlint:disable suppressions, reporter formats (sarif, json, checkstyle), strict and lenient modes, SwiftLintBuildToolPlugin via SimplyDanny/SwiftLintPlugins, swift package plugin swiftlint, Xcode run script phases, CI integration, multiple configuration files, and rollout strategies for existing codebases. Use when setting up SwiftLint, configuring lint rules, suppressing warnings, creating baselines, choosing between build tool plugin and run script, or integrating SwiftLint into CI.
Review the current branch diff for real bugs and security issues, verify findings against surrounding code, and report only issues that survive context checks. Runs as a forked review workflow so the audit has separate reasoning budget and stays isolated from the main task flow. Use when the user asks to find bugs, review changes, or audit branch risk.
Use when writing, fixing, or editing TypeScript with duplicated logic, magic values, unclear one-liners, mixed responsibilities, clutter, arbitrary code, or inconsistent abstraction levels.
Use when writing, fixing, or editing TypeScript async flows, promises, retries, timeouts, cancellation, shared mutable state across awaits, race conditions, or flaky async tests.
Provides comprehensive code review guidance for React 19, Vue 3, Angular 17+, Svelte 5, Rust, TypeScript, Java, Python, Django, Go, C#/.NET, Kotlin, NestJS, C/C++, and more. Helps catch bugs, improve code quality, and give constructive feedback. Use when: reviewing pull requests, conducting PR reviews, code review, reviewing code changes, establishing review standards, mentoring developers, architecture reviews, security audits, checking code quality, finding bugs, giving feedback on code.
Write the canonical engineering record of a fixed bug — root cause, mechanism, fix, validation, and how it slipped through. Engineer-audience, code identifiers welcome. Use after a debug session lands a fix, before closing the ticket. Trigger on /post-mortem, when the user says "write the post-mortem / postmortem / RCA / root cause analysis", "document this fix", "write up the root cause", "close out this bug with a writeup", or hands you a fixed-and-validated bug and asks for the writeup.
Submit a code review to GitHub via the GitHub API. Use this as the final step in a code review pipeline to post review findings to a PR.
Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Four LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.