155 skills · sorted by relevance
Evaluate code review feedback against the actual code, supported environments, and existing behavior. Clarify uncertain requests, respond with technical evidence, and implement valid changes one at a time with tests for each fix.
Set up RuView sensing nodes by building and flashing ESP32 firmware, configuring WiFi and the receiving address, and checking serial logs. Diagnose missing CSI streams, the WiFi signal measurements sent by sensing nodes.
Process vendor bills from email, PDFs, or photos into proposed accounting entries and a payment plan. Checks duplicates, assigns accounts and jobs, matches purchase and receiving records, and requires separate approval for ledger entries and payments.
Receive live Lark/Feishu updates for messages, approvals, tasks, meetings, and more. Stream them as NDJSON, one JSON record per line, with filtering and time or event limits for bots and automated event processing.
Set up Slack alerts for a colony, a group of AI agents, so users can reply when work stalls. The skill prepares the Slack app, stores sending and receiving tokens, connects a channel, and tests notifications.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification, not blind implementation.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing suggestions, especially when feedback is unclear, risky, disputed, or technically questionable.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Verifies review feedback with technical rigor, not blind agreement. Use when receiving review before implementing suggestions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving critical feedback on an analysis or manuscript, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or methodologically questionable - requires verification, not performative agreement or blind changes
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Process and act on code review feedback. Use when receiving review results.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Always use this skill before claiming any work is done, fixed, passing, or complete — even if it seems obvious. Also use when receiving code review feedback from any source (human or automated), when finishing a task or major feature, before committing or creating a PR, or when about to express satisfaction with work. Covers three practices: receiving feedback with technical rigor (no performative agreement), triggering code review via /code-review command or cook/fix pipelines, and verification gates (run the command, read the output, then make the claim). Never skip — the cost of false completion claims is higher than the cost of verifying. References: code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Triage reviewer comments on a GitHub PR with receiving-code-review discipline — verify each against the codebase, then accept/push-back/clarify, and optionally reply in-thread. Use when responding to received PR feedback. NOT for giving a review (see mk:review-pr); NOT for implementing the fixes (hand off to mk:fix).
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.