Results for “doe”

22 skills

coding-standard

Creates and updates coding standards, conventions, rules, and guidelines for the current project. Use when creating new standards from scratch, converting existing documents into coding standards, or updating existing standards. Does not create architectural decision records — use architectural-decision-record for ADRs. Does not write feature or system documentation — use project-documentation for that. Does not research open-ended options — use research. Does not produce runbooks for operational scenarios — use runbook for that.

Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.

research-grants

Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC with agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, and compliance guidance.

30.2k · bundle

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.

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.

Create or update a runbook for an operational scenario — an incident an alert fires for, a recurring scheduled task, or a known failure mode on a live service — using a consistent template. Use when writing, drafting, authoring, or updating a runbook for an alert, incident, on-call procedure, scheduled maintenance, or operational SOP. Applies a YAGNI preflight requiring the scenario to be real before producing the runbook. Does not produce feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not record architectural decisions — use architectural-decision-record. Does not create coding standards — use coding-standard.

More results

domain-modeling

Maintains a project's domain vocabulary and records architecturally-significant decisions as they're made — a CONTEXT.md glossary and gated ADRs, not passive documentation read once. Use when terminology conflicts or turns fuzzy, when making a decision that's hard to reverse/surprising/a real trade-off, or when a stated domain rule doesn't match what the code actually does.

med-variance-application

Use this skill when a driver does not meet federal medical standards and needs to apply for a variance. Covers application steps, required documentation, and review timeline.

Triage a raw, vague issue or bug report into a structured document that names what is known, what is missing, and what to do next. Use when an incoming issue, bug report, or problem description is too vague or incomplete for investigation or planning, and recommend the right next han skill. Does not investigate root causes or trace code paths — use investigate for debugging, diagnosis, and root cause analysis. Does not plan features or build solutions — use plan-a-feature or plan-implementation for that.

compound-engineering

Use after solving a non-trivial bug or making a non-obvious decision, to capture it as durable, searchable documentation so the next session doesn't re-derive it from scratch - and use at the start of related work to check whether that documentation already exists.

enda-dhea-six-month-trial

Initiates a 6‑month trial of DHEA replacement in women with primary adrenal insufficiency (PAI) who have persistent low libido, depressive symptoms, or low energy despite otherwise optimized glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid therapy. If the patient does not report a sustained beneficial effect after 6 months, discontinue DHEA.

Record observable skill test runs for debugging. Use when the user wants to test, dry-run, debug, inspect, or compare how a Codex skill behaves on a concrete request; creates a local non-overwriting Markdown report with the visible process, files read, commands run, changed artifacts, errors, and a brief behavior summary. Does not certify skill quality or replace user judgment.

Searches the aem.live documentation for information on AEM Edge Delivery Services features, then fetches and reads full page content for detailed guidance.

Rewrites AEM Edge Delivery Services page content for AI search discoverability (Generative Engine Optimization) by analyzing structure, clarity, and factual density.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "understand a codebase", "get code context", "research a library", "explore a repository", "find code examples", "look up documentation", asks a natural-language code/technology question (e.g. "how does X work", "X vs Y", "best practice for Z"), or wants to understand how a specific project, library, or concept works before making changes.

generate-docx-contract

Generate an editable DOCX service agreement with parties, terms, and payment schedule.

Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a feature is ready for testing or asks "does this work?". Three tiers: Quick (critical/high only), Standard (+ medium), Exhaustive (+ cosmetic). Produces before/after health scores, fix evidence, and a ship-readiness summary. For report-only mode, use /qa-only. (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "quality check", "test the app", "run QA".

>- Run automatic SPICE simulations on subcircuits detected from KiCad schematic analysis — validates filter frequencies, divider ratios, opamp gains, LC resonance, and crystal load capacitance. Supports ngspice, LTspice, and Xyce (auto-detected). Generates testbenches, runs batch mode, produces structured pass/warn/fail report. Use when the user asks to simulate, verify, or validate any analog subcircuit — RC filters, LC filters, voltage dividers, opamp circuits, crystal oscillators. Also for "simulate my circuit", "run spice", "verify with simulation", "check my filter cutoff", "does this divider give the right voltage", "what's the bandwidth of this opamp stage". Consider suggesting simulation during design reviews when the schematic analyzer reports simulatable subcircuits and a SPICE simulator is available.

theycallmeholla

Generates a structured developer-facing markdown document that teaches how a specific feature, module, or piece of functionality works in the codebase. Use this skill whenever the user runs `/teach`, asks "how does X work", "explain the auth flow", "document how payments work", "walk me through the webhook system", or any request to understand and document internal codebase functionality. Also trigger when the user wants to produce onboarding docs, feature walkthroughs, or "how it works" references for developers. Always use this skill even if the user only gives a vague description — use the provided context or file hints to locate the relevant code yourself and build the teaching doc from there. This skill writes for developers reading the codebase — for end-user/customer-facing help docs, use the eli5-features skill instead.

brycewang-stanford

Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.

Restructure existing code without changing its behavior, through a test-gated refactoring loop: a named target, a green suite over that target before any edit, a planned sequence of small named refactorings, and the full suite re-run after every step. Use when the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, simplify, or improve the design of existing code, or to apply refactoring recommendations from a code-review or architectural-analysis report. This skill changes code; it does not review code (use code-review), assess architecture (use architectural-analysis), or build new behavior test-first (use tdd). Do not use it on code inside an active tdd loop; the refactor step of tdd owns that cleanup. Runs its planned sequence to completion without pausing for review; to review each named refactoring as it lands, use pairing.

Complete meeting lifecycle skill — preparation before and follow-up after any professional or personal meeting. Use this skill whenever the user mentions an upcoming meeting, wants to prepare for a meeting, needs an agenda, wants to brief themselves before talking to someone, needs to write up meeting notes, wants to send a follow-up email after a meeting, needs to capture action items, or says anything like "I have a meeting with...", "I just got out of a meeting", "help me prepare for...", "I need to follow up on...", or "what should I ask in this meeting." Also trigger for specific meeting types: job interviews, performance reviews, 1:1s, sales or client calls, and difficult conversations. Both modes are covered: PRE-meeting preparation and POST-meeting follow-up. Trigger proactively even when the user doesn't use the word "meeting" — if they describe a situation where they're about to talk to someone important, or just finished such a conversation and need to capture it, this skill applies.