Results for “documentation”

GraphQL gives clients exactly the data they need - no more, no less. One endpoint, typed schema, introspection. But the flexibility that makes it powerful also makes it dangerous. Without proper controls, clients can craft queries that bring down your server. This skill covers schema design, resolvers, DataLoader for N+1 prevention, federation for microservices, and client integration with Apollo/urql. Key insight: GraphQL is a contract. The schema is the API documentation. Design it carefully.

GraphQL gives clients exactly the data they need - no more, no less. One endpoint, typed schema, introspection. But the flexibility that makes it powerful also makes it dangerous. Without proper controls, clients can craft queries that bring down your server. This skill covers schema design, resolvers, DataLoader for N+1 prevention, federation for microservices, and client integration with Apollo/urql. Key insight: GraphQL is a contract. The schema is the API documentation. Design it carefully.

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.

Reviews pull requests and local diffs against Google's eng-practices code review guide (design, complexity, tests, naming, comments, style, consistency, documentation, every-line, context) and emits a ranked, principle-tagged finding list with rich local diff rendering. Optional follow-up step posts selected findings as a GitHub PR review. Invoke when the user says "googly-eyes this PR", "review by the canon", "principled code review", "Google-style review", "review this CL", or pastes a PR URL and asks for a code review. 👀

Apply lean thinking to UX: hypothesis-driven design, collaborative sketching, and rapid experiments instead of heavy deliverables. Use when the user mentions "Lean UX", "design hypothesis", "UX experiment", "collaborative design", "outcome over output", "design studio method", "assumption mapping", or "lightweight research". Also trigger when reducing design documentation overhead, getting cross-functional teams to co-design, or running fast usability experiments. Covers hypothesis statements, MVPs for UX, and cross-functional collaboration. For Build-Measure-Learn, see lean-startup. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics.

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research.

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

Search, scrape, and interact with the web via the Firecrawl CLI. Use this skill whenever the user wants to search the web, find articles, research a topic, look something up online, scrape a webpage, grab content from a URL, get data from a website, crawl documentation, download a site, or interact with pages that need clicks or logins. Also use when they say "fetch this page", "pull the content from", "get the page at https://", or reference external websites. This provides real-time web search with full page content and interact capabilities — beyond what Claude can do natively with built-in tools. Do NOT trigger for local file operations, git commands, deployments, or code editing tasks.

Generate user-friendly "Explain Like I'm 5" feature documentation for end users by reading the codebase. Use this skill whenever the user wants to document a feature for non-technical users, write help docs, create an explainer for a feature in their app, produce onboarding content, or asks "make a user doc for X". Trigger on phrasings like "ELI5 the closeout flow", "write user docs for the kanban view", "explain this feature to a customer", "make a help article for X", "document this for end users". Also known as "E-features-LI5". This skill produces plain-language docs written for someone with the app open trying to get something done — not internal developer docs (use the `teach` skill for those) and not feature announcements.