Orchestrate persistent agent memory across coding sessions, repos, and tools. Load when the user asks to remember, recall context, save project memory, create a handoff, manage global memory, update memory, compact memory, audit memory, forget memory, continue from prior sessions, or before commit/push/git operations that checkpoint project state.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Plan which model tier handles which work BEFORE execution begins — a high-cognition model deeply understands the problem, lays the foundations, then emits a modular plan assigning each module the cheapest tier that can safely execute it, with escalation tripwires and one-way-door protection. Advisory only: it announces "next module → tier X / model Y" at each boundary and the HUMAN switches models — harnesses like Cursor cannot switch mid-run. Load when the user asks which model to use, wants a model plan, model tiers, model-tier routing, assign models to tasks or modules, says "cheap model got stuck", "which model for this task", "cost-efficient model choice", or when implementation-plan / problem-to-plan need a model: tier column. NOT dynamic-routing (plan-path selection after failure) — this skill assigns cognition tiers to work.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build Motion (Framer Motion) React animations — declarative motion components, variants, AnimatePresence, layout transitions, scroll effects, and inline SVG pathLength. Load when the user asks to animate with Motion, Framer Motion, motion.div, AnimatePresence, layout animation, whileInView, or React enter/exit transitions. Also triggers on "framer-motion", "motion/react", "useReducedMotion", or "React animation library". React/Next only — not README embeds or non-React.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Measure, profile, and fix performance bottlenecks — Core Web Vitals, backend latency, bundle size, and database queries. Load when performance requirements exist, users report slowness, profiling reveals bottlenecks, or the user asks to optimize load time, LCP, INP, CLS, or response time. Not for premature optimization without evidence. Pairs with browser-testing-with-devtools and ci-cd-and-automation for regression guards.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Strip a problem to its irreducible fundamental truths and rebuild the solution from the ground up — free from analogy, convention, and inherited assumptions. Load when the user feels constrained by how something has always been done, when existing solutions feel expensive or inefficient for no good reason, when the user asks to think from first principles, challenge the fundamentals, or rebuild this from scratch. Also triggers on "why does it have to work this way", "what are the actual constraints here", "ignore what everyone else does", or when deep-thinking diagnoses a convention-break frame. Based on Aristotle's first principles method, popularised by Musk and Feynman. Produces genuinely novel solutions by eliminating convention.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Harden an application against common security risks — validate inputs at boundaries, least-privilege access, safe secrets handling, dependency hygiene, and secure defaults. Load when shipping user-facing code, adding auth/session flows, handling untrusted data, exposing APIs, or the user asks for "security hardening", "OWASP hardening", "secure this feature". Not for skill-library security gates (use secure-skill family).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Review a built frontend against its chosen direction, catch drift back to generic AI defaults, enforce state coverage, ethical patterns, UX heuristics, and polish, and check contrast with APCA (not the legacy WCAG ratio). Produces specific, prioritized fixes — never vibes-based feedback. Works with pasted screenshots or Playwright MCP automated capture. Load when the user asks to review a UI, audit a design, check if a frontend looks generic or vibecoded, evaluate visual quality or polish, says "review this UI", "is this design good", "audit my frontend", "does this feel like [product]", "design QA", or when frontend-design routes here. Sub-skill of frontend-design.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Surface every assumption embedded in a plan, strategy, or document, assess how critical and how validated each one is, and identify which ones to test first. Load when the user asks to map assumptions, surface hidden beliefs, find what must be true for this to work, run an assumption audit, or when deep-thinking diagnoses an assumption frame. Also triggers on "what are we assuming", "what must be true for this to work", or "find the untested beliefs". Based on David Bland and Alex Osterwalder's assumption mapping method from Testing Business Ideas.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Test and debug browser UIs using Chrome DevTools MCP — DOM inspection, console errors, network requests, performance traces, and visual verification. Load when building or debugging anything that renders in a browser, verifying a UI fix, profiling Core Web Vitals in a real page, or the user asks for browser testing with DevTools. Requires chrome-devtools MCP configured. Not for backend-only or CLI work. Pairs with frontend-design and performance-optimization.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design and implement CI/CD pipelines and automation — fast checks on every PR, safe releases, and repeatable workflows. Load when setting up GitHub Actions (or similar), adding pre-merge gates, automating releases, or the user asks "add CI", "set up workflows", "automate checks", "CD pipeline". Not for one-off local scripts (use task-specific tooling).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Compress an oversized SKILL.md to under 200 lines without losing effectiveness. Load when a skill exceeds 200 lines, when AGENTS.md triggers compression after a skill edit, or when the user asks to compress, shrink, slim down, or optimize a skill. Also triggers on "this skill is too long", "reduce skill size", "make this skill shorter". Applies to all skills including meta skills — the 200-line rule has no exceptions. Preserves hard gates, gotchas, output format, routing triggers, and at least one example. When genuinely CORE content cannot be compressed away, invokes split-skill instead of degrading the skill.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create focused role prompts for agents in multi-agent topologies. Load when agent-builder needs role prompts for agents, or when a user asks to "create an agent prompt", "write a role prompt", "define agent identity", "write an agent role", "prompt for this agent", "write instructions for this agent", "agent persona". Scope: agent role prompts only (v1). System prompts, task prompts, and skill invocation prompts are future TODOs.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Gracefully retire a skill that is redundant, superseded, or no longer earning its place in the context window. Load when improve-skills finds a skill scoring 0-5/14 AND research confirms the domain is now handled natively by current models, when two skills have overlapping triggers and one subsumes the other, when the user asks to remove a skill, retire a skill, delete a skill, or clean up redundant skills, or when validate-skills flags a skill as a duplicate trigger risk. Handles removal cleanly: updates all callers, removes from AGENTS.md, updates README, and archives rather than deletes so the skill can be recovered if needed.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Select alternative execution paths when a plan step fails — branch on outcomes instead of blind retry. Load when a structured plan step fails, an unexpected observation arrives, or the user asks what to try next after an error. Also triggers on "try another approach", "route around this failure", "replan on failure", "if X fails try Y", or outcome-based branching during multi-step work. Pairs with structured-planning and debug-and-fix. Does not replace root-cause debugging — adds plan-level path selection.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Score LLM and agent outputs using LLM-as-judge techniques — direct scoring against rubrics or pairwise comparison between two outputs. Includes built-in bias mitigation for position bias, length bias, and self-enhancement bias. Load when the user asks to score an output, judge a response, evaluate against a rubric, compare two outputs, do direct scoring, run pairwise comparison, or says "rate this", "which response is better", "score this against the rubric", "judge this output", "LLM as judge this". Sub-skill of eval-output orchestrator.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Analyse experiment results, run validity checks (SRM, exposure parity, data integrity, novelty/primacy), interpret causally, make a ship/iterate/kill decision against the pre-declared rule, and append to cumulative learnings. Forces honest readouts — strips significance claims from underpowered or peek-violating tests; never lets directional results masquerade as causal wins. Load when results exist, or when the user says "read out this experiment", "analyse the test", "did the test win", "interpret the results", "what did we learn", "ship or kill", or when the experimentation orchestrator routes here.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Write a rigorous, decision-grade experiment spec — falsifiable hypothesis, primary metric, guardrails, randomisation unit, exposure definition, method (A/B, holdout, switchback, quasi-experiment, MAB), MDE/duration plan, peek policy, validity threats, and pre-committed decision rule. Platform-agnostic. Load when the user has a candidate experiment and needs to spec it before launch, or says "spec this experiment", "write the test plan", "design this A/B test", "what's the hypothesis", "how big a sample do we need", "how long should we run this", "define the metrics for this test", or when the experimentation orchestrator routes here.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Orchestrator for the experimentation skill suite — turn assumptions and product questions into rigorous, well-instrumented experiments and decision-grade readouts. Routes through backlog → spec → runbook → readout based on user need and existing artefacts. Platform-agnostic with PostHog as the primary binding. Load when the user asks to design an experiment, A/B test something, set up an experiment, run a holdout, test a hypothesis, decide what to test next, read out experiment results, analyse a test, or says "should we A/B test this", "experiment on the landing page", "is this lift real", "ship or kill this test", "what should we test next", "build an experiment backlog", "test the pricing page", "validate this with an experiment".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Write the executable feature specification — the WHAT and WHY artifact that agents and reviewers treat as source of truth. Owns both /specify and /clarify modes. Load when the user asks to write a feature spec, write a specification, write an executable spec, define functional requirements, capture acceptance criteria as Given/When/Then, or when the spec-driven-development orchestrator routes here. Also triggers on "feature spec", "executable spec", "/specify", "/clarify", "write the spec for this feature", "specification for", "spec-driven", "machine-readable spec". Output: docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-feature-spec.md. Hard gate: cannot Approve while [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Decompose an unknown quantity into 3-5 estimable factors and produce a defensible order-of-magnitude answer without needing precise data. Load when the user needs to size something without data — market size, resource requirements, effort estimates, user numbers, costs — or when a decision is blocked by "we don't know the numbers". Also triggers on "ballpark this", "rough estimate", "how big is this market", "how long would this take", "how many users", or when deep-thinking diagnoses a sizing/estimation frame. The goal is not precision — it is a defensible answer that enables a decision to be made. Based on Enrico Fermi's estimation method.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Orchestrator + builder for distinctive, production-grade frontends that don't look AI-generated. Derives stack and design context from product-soul/PRD/specs, then runs the anti-slop chain — explore distinct directions, lock a DESIGN.md system, build from golden examples with mandatory polish + every interactive/empty/loading/error state, then review. Load when the user asks to build a UI, design a frontend, build a landing page or dashboard or web app, beautify or redesign a page, make a UI look premium/playful/editorial, says "build me a frontend", "make this not look AI-generated", "design this interface", "give this real polish", or "frontend design". Routes to design-direction, design-system, design-review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。