Design or change REA investigation tools by defining responsibilities, inputs, results, and CLI or MCP interfaces. Produce a proposal that explains how Evidence records should be interpreted, compares the nearest existing alternative, and outlines verification.
Design or change REA investigation tools, CLI/MCP contracts, provider capabilities, and Evidence semantics.
rea-tool-design helps define a new or changed REA investigation tool: its responsibilities, input and result formats, and the rules for calling it through CLI or MCP. It also considers the responsibilities of providers that supply analysis capabilities and the meaning of Evidence records used to document investigation findings. For a design request, it produces a proposal that includes a comparison with the closest existing tool and an approach to verification.
Use it when deciding how much of an investigation question a particular tool should handle. The design draws on current specifications and nearby existing tools. If the source, documentation, and connected tool catalog describe different versions, those differences are considered in the proposal.
It refers to REA’s docs/tool-design.md and current specifications. Implementation and verification require checking the testing guide and CONTRIBUTING.md, including generated-file management rules. Implementation follows the requested scope and existing authorization.
This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.
AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.
The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use the tool-design guide for tool boundaries, contract semantics, provider ownership, and discoverability. Inspect the current contract and nearest existing tool relevant to the analyst question; source, documentation, and live catalogs may describe different versions.
For a design request, return the proposed boundary, input/result shape, Evidence semantics, nearest alternative, and verification approach. Implement when requested, preserving the user's scope and existing authorization.
For implementation or verification, consult testing for the affected consumer and provider lanes, and contributing for generated-file ownership. Read provider/workflow guides only as the task requires.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Investigate performance bottlenecks in REA analysis workflows and improve caching, queries, or shared processing. Compare completed tasks before and after changes while preserving correct results, examined coverage, and access to supporting evidence.
Prepare REA changelogs and GitHub release notes from a fixed Git revision. Turn verified changes into clear user outcomes, preserve accurate contributor credit, and keep the release text aligned with Release Please, the automated release workflow.
Audit REA’s automated checks and test suites to find missed failures, outdated test data, and unnecessary work. Use reproducible experiments and timing measurements to assess fixes or efficiency changes while preserving checks that catch real defects.
Investigate shipped applications, binaries, packages, and firmware with REA to explain features, compare versions, or guide reconstruction. Use decompiled code and runtime observations where needed, keeping observed facts, inferred behavior, and unresolved questions clearly separated.