Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.
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。
Simulate the SCF team's manual prescreen on a Build Award submission — a completeness and eligibility check applied to every full submission before panel review. Checks completeness, Stellar integration, eligibility, budget issues, and common disqualifiers. Use when reviewing a draft Build Award submission for readiness before it goes to the SCF round.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Simulates the SCF prescreen that every Build Award submission goes through before it reaches the review panel. The prescreen is a manual completeness and eligibility check by the SCF team — it confirms your submission is complete, reviewable, and ready, not whether your idea is strong. This skill identifies issues that would get flagged at prescreen so you can fix them first.
Every Build Award submission goes through prescreening before it reaches the review panel — referred and non-referred submissions alike; a referral confers no prescreen exemption. The prescreen is a qualitative, manual check by the SCF team that confirms the submission is complete, reviewable, and meets the core eligibility criteria. It is not a judgment of the strength of your idea, and the SCF team may reach out with suggested edits so you can improve the submission before it is sent to the panel.
The most common prescreen issues:
Run through each check. For each item, report: PASS, FLAG (potential issue), or FAIL (likely prescreen failure).
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Project description | Is there a clear description of what's being built? |
| Problem statement | Is the problem being solved articulated? |
| Target audience | Is the intended user or market defined? |
| Technical approach | Is there any technical detail beyond a concept? |
| Team information | Are team members named with roles? |
| Deliverables | Are deliverables listed for each tranche? |
| Budget | Is a budget provided with any breakdown? |
| Timeline | Are estimated dates or durations included? |
| Links | Do all provided links actually work? Test every one. |
FAIL condition: Any core section is entirely missing or blank. FLAG condition: A section exists but is vague, minimal, or incomplete.
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Stellar mentioned | Does the submission explicitly reference Stellar? |
| Specific capabilities | Does it name specific Stellar features (Soroban, SEPs, anchors, asset issuance)? |
| Essential vs optional | Would this project work equally well without Stellar? |
| Technical specifics | Are there technical details about how Stellar is used? |
| On-chain component | Is there an on-chain element, or is Stellar only mentioned in passing? |
FAIL condition: Stellar is not mentioned, or the project has no meaningful Stellar dependency. FLAG condition: Stellar is mentioned but feels peripheral or interchangeable with other chains.
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Project type | Is this a project type the SCF funds (software, infrastructure, protocol)? |
| Duplicate submission | Is this the same project submitted under a different name? |
| Prior funding | If previously funded, has the team delivered on past awards? |
| Budget range | Is the budget within the Build Award range (up to $150K)? |
FAIL condition: Ineligible project type or clear track mismatch. FLAG condition: Borderline eligibility or unclear track fit.
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Coherence | Does the submission tell a coherent story from problem to solution? |
| Specificity | Are claims specific and concrete, or vague and generic? |
| Technical depth | Is there enough technical detail to evaluate the approach? |
| Budget proportionality | Is the budget roughly proportional to scope? |
| Writing quality | Is the submission comprehensible? |
FAIL condition: Submission is incoherent, entirely generic, or clearly AI-generated boilerplate. FLAG condition: Low specificity or thin technical detail.
## Prescreen Simulation: [Project Name]
### Overall: [LIKELY PASS / AT RISK / LIKELY FAIL]
### Completeness
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [List any missing or incomplete sections]
### Stellar Integration
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Is Stellar essential or peripheral?]
### Eligibility
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Any eligibility concerns]
### Quality Threshold
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Specificity, coherence, depth concerns]
### Red Flags
- [List any triggered red flags]
### Prescreen Risk Assessment
[1-2 sentence summary]
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.
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。
Agentic and machine-to-machine payments on Stellar. Covers x402 (HTTP 402 paid APIs via OZ Channels facilitator, fee-sponsored clients) and MPP (Machine Payments Protocol) in both Charge mode (per-request SAC) and Channel mode (off-chain commits, high-frequency). Defaults to USDC (SEP-41 SAC) on `stellar:testnet`/`stellar:pubnet` (CAIP-2). Use when selling a paid API to AI agents, building an x402 client, or designing a payment-channel architecture for high-frequency agent traffic.
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。
Stellar Assets (classic) + trustlines + Stellar Asset Contract (SAC) bridge to smart contracts. Covers asset issuance, distribution, authorization flags, clawback, regulated assets, trustline management, and the SAC interop layer that exposes classic assets as SEP-41 contract tokens. Use when tokenizing real-world assets, issuing stablecoins, managing trustlines, or bridging classic assets to smart contracts.
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。
Benchmark stellar-build skills to measure quality and the lift from optimization. Use when the user says "bench my skills", "bench-skills", "benchmark skills", "did optimization help", "measure my skills", "stellar-loop bench", or wants to quantify whether /optimize-skills actually improved things. Held-out eval prompts scored by an LLM judge, reproducible with fixed seeds. Fully local.
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。
Facilitate interactive brainstorming sessions using diverse creative techniques and ideation methods. Use when the user says help me brainstorm or help me ideate.
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。
Technical documentation specialist and knowledge curator. Use when the user asks to talk to Bri or requests the tech writer.
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。