Results for “user-id”

Turn assumptions, funnel opportunities, and product questions into a prioritised, feasibility-checked experiment backlog. Filters by traffic reality, metric latency, and method feasibility — not just ICE/RICE scoring. Maintains a living portfolio with status (idea → designed → running → readout → archived). Load when the user says "what should we test next", "build an experiment backlog", "prioritise our tests", "where should we experiment", "what's worth testing", or when the experimentation orchestrator routes here.

Performs a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use research.

Build MATLAB apps from requirements to working code. Asks discovery questions (or skips them when the path is known), recommends UIFigure or UIHTML architecture, identifies layout archetype (Dashboard, Explorer, Tabbed, Wizard, Canvas), produces an implementation plan, and executes the build. For UIFigure apps, optionally serializes as App Designer (.mlapp or plain-text .m + .xml). Use when a user wants to build a MATLAB app, create a GUI, make an interactive tool, build a uifigure app, build a uihtml app, build an App Designer app, build a .mlapp app, build a plain-text App Designer app, or asks which approach to use. Also use when user describes spatial layout needs: dashboard, control panel, sidebar, tabs, wizard, stepper, canvas, workspace.

Expert Socratic discovery skill for exploring ideas, architecture decisions, and technical design before writing any code. Use this skill — proactively and always first — when requirements are vague, when the user is debating between technical approaches, when the problem is unclear, or when a design decision could have significant architectural consequences. Triggers on: "should we use X or Y", "help me think through", "I'm not sure how to approach this", "what's the best architecture for", "trade-offs between", "design before I code", "let's think through this", "I have an idea", "how should I structure", "help me design", "I want to build X but not sure how", "what approach would you recommend", "is this the right way to". Produces a validated design doc with 2-3 implementation options, trade-offs, and a recommendation. Always use before planning when the approach is not yet locked.

Run a structured discovery interview and produce a complete, developer-ready Product Requirements Document. Load when the user asks to write a PRD, create product requirements, document a feature, define user stories with acceptance criteria, or turn a rough idea into a formal product requirements document. Also triggers on "document this feature", "write requirements for", "create a one-pager", "turn this into a PRD", "I need a PRD for", or any request to produce a structured product document for stakeholder alignment or engineering handoff. Supports Full PRD, Lean PRD, and One-Pager formats. Note: for executable feature specifications (FRs, NFRs, ACs as Given/When/Then consumable by AI coding agents), route to `feature-spec` instead — PRDs frame the product, feature-specs encode the implementable contract.

Use when a user asks to use, run, delegate, or fulfill a task through a capability that may exist as an online Bot/MetaBot skill-service, especially when no local specialized skill matches. Treat Bot, bot, and MetaBot wording as equivalent and case-insensitive for remote service requests; select from the local cached online service list first, then call the remote service and continue through trace get/watch, optional conversation view opening, and rating closure. Do not use for browse-only service discovery, network source registry management, identity creation/switching, or private chat-only requests.

Evaluate any project, product, or system's claims against its actual implementation — scoring each claim for truth, identifying architectural gaps, assessing competitive positioning, proposing creative solutions, and producing an actionable roadmap. Load when the user asks to evaluate claims, reality-check a project, assess what this project actually does vs what it says, validate product claims, or score a system's credibility. Also triggers on "is this real", "does this work as claimed", "evaluate this project", "assess the gap between claims and reality", "how credible is this", "investor assessment", "score these claims", or "what's real vs marketing".

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

Use when the user asks to run a full empirical / causal analysis in Python — by default in the style of an applied economics paper (AER / QJE / JPE / ReStud / AEJ) with DID / RD / IV / SCM / DML / matching, written-out estimating equation + identifying assumption, Table 1 / Table 2 / event-study figure / robustness gauntlet — OR in epidemiology / public health style (target-trial emulation, IPTW + g-formula + TMLE triplet, Mendelian randomization, KM/AFT survival, E-value sensitivity, STROBE/TRIPOD reporting) — OR in ML causal inference style (DML, S/T/X/R/DR meta-learners, causal forest, Dragonnet/TARNet/CEVAE, BCF, CATE distribution, policy learning, conformal causal, fairness audit, causal discovery) — OR in distributional / gap-decomposition style (Oaxaca–Blinder `sp.oaxaca`, Kitagawa `sp.kitagawa_decompose`, DiNardo–Fortin–Lemieux `sp.dfl_decompose`, Gelbach `sp.gelbach`, Fairlie `sp.fairlie`, RIF / FFL `sp.rif_decomposition`, all reachable through the `sp.decompose` dispatcher). Also covers exporting mu

Create OR review a page-brief — the artifact BETWEEN a wireflow and the full PRD. It turns each unique page/screen of a product into documented requirements TIED TO JOBS: a self-contained board card per page (what the page is accountable for, the job-tagged checklist of what it must let you do, the journeys it appears in, what it connects to, and the acceptance criteria that say how you'd know it's right). It is the "PRD per page", not a sitemap — and it stops ABOVE the screen: no components, no layout, no hierarchy. Use whenever the user wants to "spec the pages", "document each screen", turn a wireflow + live design into per-page requirements, or asks "what does this page need to do / which jobs pass through it" — even if they never say "page-brief". Natural NEXT STEP after the wireflow skill. ALSO use it to REVIEW an existing page-brief / screen catalog. In the A-Team pipeline this is a definition-phase skill: output lands in docs/features/<slug>/briefs/pages/, job codes are the durable [[NN]] ids from doc