existential-birds

Use when you want to generate Architecture Decision Records from this session. Triggers on "write ADRs", "document our decisions", "create decision records", "record the choices we made". Also useful after design discussions where decisions were reached but not documented. Does NOT extract decisions alone (use adr-decision-extraction) or provide MADR template (use adr-writing). Orchestrates the full workflow: subagent extraction, user confirmation, parallel generation, and verification.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Process external code review feedback with technical rigor. Use when receiving feedback from another LLM, human reviewer, or CI tool. Verifies claims before implementing, tracks disposition.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts across four categories (tests, dead code, abstraction, style) over the project or changed files — using parallel subagents when the agent supports them, otherwise four sequential passes. Scans files changed since main by default; use --all for full-project scan. Triggers on LLM cruft cleanup, agent-generated code review, dead code sweeps, test-quality passes, or when the user asks to scan the whole repo.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review implementation plans for parallelization, TDD, types, libraries, and security before execution

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyzes feedback logs to identify patterns and suggest improvements to review skills. Use when you have accumulated feedback data and want to improve review accuracy.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews PRs that add or modify Agent Skills, checking structural validity, design quality, and marketplace consistency. Use when reviewing skill file changes, auditing SKILL.md quality, or running automated skill PR reviews.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Repo-wide structural-maintainability review — code-judo restructurings, 1k-line file guard, anti-spaghetti branching, canonical-layer enforcement, anti-magic abstractions, explicit type/boundary contracts.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Produce a comprehensive prompt that hands off the current session's work to a fresh session for sub-agent-orchestrated execution. Use when the user wants to execute discussed/planned work in a new session, run a job to completion via sub-agents, or generate a portable handoff prompt with per-task verification. Assumes the target session supports sub-agents. Triggers on "subagent-prompt", "give me a prompt to run this in a new session", "hand this off to sub-agents", "execute this with sub-agents".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Confirms or rejects findings from review-llm-artifacts before deletes or risky refactors. Loads review-verification-protocol-style checks per finding. Use after a review run, when the user wants to reduce false positives, before fix-llm-artifacts on dead code, or when validating a full-project scan.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Core technical documentation writing principles for voice, tone, structure, and LLM-friendly patterns. Use when writing or reviewing any documentation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Explanation documentation patterns for understanding-oriented content - conceptual guides that explain why things work the way they do. Use when writing an explanation doc, conceptual guide, understanding/background doc, design rationale, or architecture explanation, or when asked how/why something works. Builds on the docs-style core writing principles.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants web research: gathering cited, multi-angle evidence on a specific question. Triggers on: "research X for me", "do web research on", "look up sources for", "find citations for", "gather evidence on", "what does the web say about X". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), local file search, LLM-as-judge evaluation, or paywalled/auth-gated scraping. Produces a written plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when reviewing, critiquing, or stress-testing an existing strategy document. Evaluates seven dimensions — diagnosis quality, guiding policy strength, action coherence, assumption exposure, falsifiability — with optional 7S, Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard, and Hoshin Kanri lenses. Triggers on: review my strategy, poke holes in this plan, what's weak here, strategy audit, red team this. Does NOT build strategy (use strategy-interview) or brainstorm project ideas (use brainstorm-beagle).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants to build or think through a strategy via guided conversation — for a company, product, team, career, or initiative. Triggers on "help me figure out our direction", "what should we focus on", strategic planning, competitive positioning, go-to-market strategy. Also catches indirect requests like prioritization struggles or "we have too many priorities". Does NOT review existing strategy documents (use strategy-review) or brainstorm project features (use brainstorm-beagle).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use as the follow-up to brainstorm-beagle when a spec has an Open Questions section (or quietly carries latent gaps) that need closing before planning or implementation can begin. Triggers on: "resolve the open questions", "close the gaps in this spec", "research the open items", "finalize my spec", "make this spec implementation-ready", "answer the TBDs". Also triggers whenever the user points at a brainstorm-beagle spec and asks for research, proposals, or answers to unresolved items. Orchestrates parallel research subagents when available (falls back to inline sequential research otherwise), proposes answers one at a time for user approval, then rewrites the spec in place so it arrives at planning with no known gaps. Does NOT write code, design implementation, or create plans — it only produces a complete spec.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: "work backwards", "write a PRFAQ", "press release first", "is this idea worth building", "pressure-test this concept", "filter this before brainstorm", "is this a real product". Also catches solution-first pitches ("I want to build X that does Y") and technology-first pitches ("use AI to...") that need customer-first filtering. Produces a binary pass/fail verdict, not a polished doc. Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical, concrete. On pass, hands off to brainstorm-beagle with a concept brief. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, scaffold projects, or draft specs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on "which repo is better", "compare these implementations", "evaluate both solutions", "rank these codebases", or "judge which approach wins". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality — use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs — use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: "brainstorm this", "I have an idea for...", "help me think through this project", "what should I build", "spec this out". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews — produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Configure LLM providers, use fallback models, handle streaming, and manage model settings in PydanticAI. Use when selecting models, implementing resilience, or optimizing API calls.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Implement dependency injection in PydanticAI agents using RunContext and deps_type. Use when agents need database connections, API clients, user context, or any external resources.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.