Results for “design-implementation”

Guides collaborative dialogue to turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs, exploring intent, requirements, and design before implementation.

Guides collaborative dialogue to turn ideas into approved designs and specs before any implementation begins.

Guides collaborative dialogue to turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs before any implementation begins.

Guides collaborative dialogue to turn ideas into designs and specs, exploring intent and requirements before any implementation.

Turn an approved PRD or implementation goal into SRS/FRS technical requirements (How), architecture, contracts, and verification decisions.

Design and improve product onboarding experiences that help users understand, adopt, and succeed quickly, covering assessment, principles, and implementation patterns.

Create a detailed, step-by-step implementation plan for a feature or project. Load when the user asks to plan a feature, create a technical roadmap, break down a PRD into tasks, design an implementation strategy, or sequence engineering work. Also triggers on "how should we build this", "implementation plan for", "technical breakdown", "task list for", or any request to turn a high-level requirement into a concrete execution plan. Supports phased rollouts, architecture-first, and MVP-focused planning.

Generate structured, machine-readable implementation plans for features, refactoring, upgrades, or infrastructure changes.

Designs an approval-gated feature specification from approved requirements, covering architecture decisions, component boundaries, quality constraints, and definition of done.

Implements work from a PRD or set of issues using TDD, typechecking, and regular testing, then reviews and commits the changes.

Run a structured 5-day process to prototype, test, and validate product ideas with real users. Covers mapping, sketching, deciding, prototyping, and testing across Monday-Friday.

Plan-driven implementation in Sage/Acorn — reads docs/plans/ directory, implements components from approved sub-plans, runs scaffold generators (lando acorn acf:block), commits incrementally, auto-invokes block-scaffolding per ACF block, runs lando flush and lando theme-build after changes; full PR workflow with sage-reviewer gate. Invoke for: "/building", "implement from the plan", "implement from the plan", "build from the plan", "execute the plan", "start building", "code this feature". Skip when: there is no approved plan yet — run /architecture-discovery then /plan-generator first.

Plan the UX and UI for a feature before writing code. Runs a structured discovery interview, then produces a design brief that guides implementation. Use during the planning phase to establish design direction, constraints, and strategy before any code is written.

Generate Product Requirements Documents through structured conversation for any project. Use when starting a new feature, documenting requirements, creating specs before implementation, or needing clarity on scope and success criteria.

Trigger: PRD, product requirements, spec, problem framing, project scoping, roadmap. Scope: Creating and updating product requirement documents and framing problem scopes. Boundary: Excludes code implementation, design mocks, or CI/CD config.

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.

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.

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.

Use when asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software and the work is non-trivial — including delivering a change request (issue, ticket, or request) from intake through planning, gates, implementation, review, verified PR, and authorized post-merge release. neckbeard routes the change through framing, discovery, design, implementation, review, verification, delivery, and learning — choosing the smallest *safe* intervention, proving it at the real delivery boundary, and leaving an inspectable evidence ledger. For change-request / issue-to-PR work, conditionally loads a 9-phase journey with gates, delivery packet, and lifecycle integration. Composes specialist catalog skills rather than replacing them. Not a persona, not a '10x developer' prompt, not a LOC-minimizer. The journey is not loaded for plain fixes, refactors, or reviews that lack an issue/ticket trajectory.

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.

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.

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

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.