Skill UI

Systematically audit Playwright test files against documented anti-patterns, rate their quality, and summarize findings so teams can fix flaky or under-tested scenarios before release.

This skill provides a systematic methodology for iteratively improving complex skill documentation. By utilizing a reviewer agent, it identifies and categorizes issues (Critical, Major, Minor) in a structured loop. The process ensures that the skill meets high standards of quality, reliability, and functional completeness before deployment, moving beyond simple manual edits.

Systematically review Kubernetes RBAC roles, bindings, and service accounts to surface overly permissive access, privilege escalation paths, and least-privilege violations using tools like rbac-tool and KubiScan.

This tool systematically generates, validates, and ranks concrete, publishable research ideas based on a broad research direction provided by the user. It guides the user through the entire idea discovery pipeline, from initial landscape survey (Phase 1) to validation (novelty checks, experiments) and review, ensuring the generated ideas are novel and relevant for academic publication. It manages complex workflow orchestration and utilizes multiple external tools.

This skill provides a systematic cryptographic audit tool designed to review applications for security vulnerabilities. It scans source code and configuration files to detect weak hashing algorithms (MD5, SHA-1), insecure cipher modes (ECB), hardcoded secrets, and deprecated protocols like TLS 1.0. Essential for security assessments, compliance checks, and maintaining secure coding practices.

The Santa Method is a multi-agent adversarial verification framework designed to improve output quality by requiring two independent reviewers (Agent B and Agent C) to pass the content before publication. It eliminates single-agent bias and systematically improves outputs through iterative refinement loops until convergence or manual escalation.

This specialist simulates the role of an App Store reviewer, auditing iOS source code and metadata against Apple's strict guidelines. It systematically identifies potential compliance risks, technical vulnerabilities, monetization gaps (IAP/Subscriptions), and critical UX shortcomings, delivering a prioritized risk register for fast approval.

A comprehensive, five-stage methodology for reviewing code quality. This process systematically checks for requirements compliance, logical correctness, code maintainability, test coverage, and critical security/performance vulnerabilities. It provides actionable feedback categorized by severity (Blocker, Major, Minor, Nit), ensuring high standards for all merged code.

This skill systematically reviews test code to identify and correct common anti-patterns. It detects issues such as flaky tests, overly mocked dependencies (over-mocking), brittle assertions, excessive test size (The Giant), and structural dependencies. It explains the flaw, provides best practices, and suggests refactored, reliable implementations, helping maintain high test quality and stability.

This skill guides the systematic execution of complex development plans. It mandates a critical review of the plan for dependencies, ambiguous conditions, and environmental assumptions before execution. The process involves incremental task completion, rigorous testing, structured committing, and final reporting, ensuring adherence to established development best practices.

This guide outlines a systematic workflow for requesting code reviews, crucial for validating completed tasks, implementing major features, or preparing for merge. It emphasizes reviewing early and often, ensuring reviewers focus on the tangible work product rather than the development thought process. Learn how to use specific Git SHAs and structured templates to submit comprehensive feedback requests.

This skill generates comprehensive and structured requirements documents for a new specification. It systematically aggregates context from project files, business rules, and technical constraints, ensuring all generated requirements focus on user-observable behavior (WHAT) rather than implementation details (HOW). It follows established standards like EARS format and includes a rigorous review gate to ensure scope clarity and completeness.