Results for “implementation”

Use when designing, building, or debugging a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server in Node/TypeScript. Triggers: stdio JSON-RPC handshake, tool descriptions as discovery surface, lazy startup vs eager catalog loading, telemetry placement, schema design for tool inputs (zod), tool naming conventions for discoverability, error handling that does not leak stack traces, MCP client compatibility (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor), local resource fetching, secrets and env var handling, distributing as npm + claude mcp add. NOT for MCP client implementation, MCP HTTP transport (different surface), Anthropic Agent SDK building, or non-MCP plugin systems.

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".

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program," or "experiment playbook." Use this whenever someone is comparing two approaches and wants to measure which performs better, or when they want to build a systematic experimentation practice. For tracking implementation, see analytics. For page-level conversion optimization, see cro.

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.

Build, audit, debug, and migrate websites for durable organic discovery and reliable use by search engines, LLMs, and browser agents. Use for SEO audits or implementation; new sites, routes, templates, CMSs, catalogs, or content programs; crawling, rendering, indexing, robots, canonicals, redirects, sitemaps, hreflang, structured data, metadata, links, faceted navigation, JavaScript SEO, Core Web Vitals, or migrations; keyword, intent, architecture, content, local, media, or authority work; traffic, ranking, CTR, or indexation losses; AEO, GEO, AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT search, crawler controls, agent-readable pages, Markdown representations, `Accept: text/markdown` content negotiation, `llms.txt`, WebMCP, or agent interaction design. Trigger whenever code or architecture can materially affect public discoverability or machine usability, even if the user does not say SEO. Do not use for paid-search management alone.

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.

Designs the contract for an API change inside one codebase — a component's props, a function surface, URL or query parameters, an event payload, or a module boundary — through a discovery pass, an options document with one recommendation, a question round, and an adversarial validation round, with every element of the contract justified from one stated goal. Use when you want to design, shape, decide, or nail down an interface, contract, signature, or API change for a capability you can already describe, sized for roughly one pull request. Produces a design document and changes no code. Does not specify what a feature should do — use plan-a-feature. Does not plan delivery or sequencing — use plan-implementation. Does not assess the architecture of existing code — use architectural-analysis. Does not write the code — use tdd. Does not restructure existing code — use refactor. Runs its rounds without pausing for review; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

Reviews a product document (PRD, spec, design brief) BEFORE implementation to surface holes — undefined edge cases, missing states, policy gaps — by attacking what the document is SILENT about (things unwritten, and things written only for the happy path). Acts as a strict "sign-off manager," ruling Approve / Conditional / Reject and producing a polite, forwardable question list. Works for planners/PMs (self-review before sharing), engineers (blocking questions before coding), and designers (screen states with no mockup). Use whenever the user wants a spec/PRD/plan/brief checked for readiness or gaps, or says "review this spec", "find holes in this PRD", "poke holes in this", "is this plan good to build?", "can I start implementing this?", "what states/edge cases am I missing?", "what should I ask the PM before coding?", "run devil", or pastes/links a planning document and asks whether it's ready to act on. Do NOT use it to: write or draft a new spec, summarize or translate a document, estimate/break down tic