Results for “pe”

Verifies that every entry in a bibliography ACTUALLY EXISTS by cross-checking it against four keyless public scholarly APIs (Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, arXiv) with a polite mailto identifier, resolving DOI/arXiv IDs, fuzzy-matching title and authors (difflib SequenceMatcher ratio >=0.70), flagging retractions marked in Crossref (update-to) or OpenAlex (is_retracted), and emitting per-entry JSON verdicts mapped to the AlterLab citation-hallucination taxonomy (TF/PAC/IH/PH/SH). Accepts BibTeX, a DOI/arXiv ID list, or free-form references; degrades gracefully offline by emitting 'unverified' verdicts and never silently passing. Use when the request mentions verify citations, check references, fabricated or hallucinated references, fake DOI, retraction check, bibliography audit, or reference existence check. Does NOT write or draft papers — for authoring a manuscript (whose citation-check mode inserts citations) prefer alterlab-paper-writer instead. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

Personal finance review skill for individuals who want to understand their spending, budgets, and financial patterns. Use whenever the user wants to analyze expenses, categorize spending, review a budget, build a budget from scratch, analyze debt, audit subscriptions, understand their savings rate, or track progress toward a financial goal. Triggers: "help me review my spending", "here are my expenses", "can you look at my budget", "help me build a budget", "I want to understand where my money goes", "categorize these transactions", "help me pay off my debt", "audit my subscriptions", "am I saving enough", "am I on track for my goal", "analyze my finances", or any time the user shares financial data (even raw or messy) and wants insight. Does NOT provide investment, tax, or financial planning advice — helps users understand their own data. Trigger proactively when the user pastes transactions, expenses, or any money-related data, even without an explicit request for analysis.

Mine a codebase or product for underexploited assets — capabilities, infrastructure, data, integrations, and workflows built for one narrow purpose that could produce far more value. Finds platform primitives hiding inside features, internal tooling that could serve customers, and data accumulated but never leveraged. Produces an evidence-gated report (max 5 opportunities, mandatory kill list, one forced answer) plus a wwbd_packet JSON. Use whenever the user says "WWBD", "what would Bezos do", "what are we sitting on", "what did we accidentally build", "what could this become", "find opportunities in this repo", "what are we underexploiting", "is there a product hiding in here", or wants to know if existing infrastructure has a bigger economic surface than it currently serves. Trigger on casual phrasings too ("anything valuable buried in this codebase?"). Analyzes what EXISTS — missing features go to gap-scan, broken code to code-audit, confusing flows to ux-audit, weak persuasion to conversion-audit.

Write code through a disciplined, BDD-framed Test-Driven Development loop: build a behavior test list, then drive each behavior through red-green-refactor with an enforced observed-failure gate. Use when the user wants to implement, build, or write code test-first, "do TDD", follow "red-green-refactor", drive code from tests, choose the next test by the Transformation Priority Premise (TPP) or ZOMBIES ordering, or grow a feature behavior-by-behavior with tests leading. This skill writes and changes code; it does not produce a test plan document (use automated-test-planning, or manual-test-planning for a plan a person runs by hand), review or audit existing code (use code-review), restructure existing code outside a TDD loop (use refactor), specify what a feature should do (use plan-a-feature), or find the root cause of a bug (use investigate). Runs its loop to completion without pausing for review; to review each behavior as it lands, use pairing.

Blog and web-content system for agency work — plan topics, interview the author for their real take, brief the angle, draft the article, plan images, verify claims, score drafts for quality and AI tells, revise, publish, and refresh aging posts. Shorthand "wltbo" also triggers it. Commands share a per-client memory of brand voice, the author's positions and stories, verified facts with expiry dates, and every published post. Use for blog posts, articles, long-form content, refreshes, keyword targeting, search intent, titles and H1s, meta descriptions, internal linking, cannibalization checks, E-E-A-T, and information gain. Also use when the complaint is "it doesn't sound like us", "it reads AI-written", "it's generic", "we already wrote this one", "the facts are made up", "there are no images", "it's too thin", or "nobody thought this through". Not for social posts, emails, internal comms, case studies (case-study-builder), site audits (website-audit), or content calendars (content-strategy).

Scan a codebase, live app, or site and find the features that obviously should exist but don't — missing exports, bulk actions, search/filter, undo, history, notifications, dead-end workflows, data collected but never surfaced, backend endpoints with no UI, and half-built features that stopped partway. Produces an evidence-backed, ranked punch list (top 10 max) with a portable gap_packet JSON. Use whenever the user asks "what features are missing", "what's this app lacking", "find gaps", "run gap-scan", "feature audit", or wants proposal ammo from a prospect's app. Also use it to recheck an existing gap_packet — "what's left to do", "recheck the gaps", "what got built since" — re-verifying findings against current code and marking stale ones superseded. Flags ABSENCE only — broken code goes to code-audit, confusing flows to ux-audit, weak persuasion to conversion-audit, underexploited assets to a WWBD-style analysis. If something exists but is bad, it's not a gap — hand it off.

Drafts a federally-defensible SOW or PWS the prime issues to a subcontractor / teaming partner — same FAR 37.102(d) / 37.602 / 16.601(c)(2) / 16.306(d) discipline a contracting officer applies, opposite seat. USE WHEN the user asks to "write a SOW for our sub", "draft a PWS for [Partner]", "build the teaming-partner statement of work", "convert this SOO into a sub SOW", "we need a SOW the sub will sign", or any variant of authoring a downstream work statement. Walks the upstream 3-phase tree (acquisition intake → 6 scope blocks → 14-section assembly), pulls scope from the active Theseus KG (requirements, deliverables, work_scope_items, performance_standards), enforces FAR 37.102(d) "no FTEs in body", emits a chat-only staffing handoff for the prime's cost build, writes Markdown for `renderers` → .docx. DO NOT USE FOR prime proposal prose (`proposal-generator`), reverse-engineering an RFP (`rfp-reverse-engineer`), pricing the sub (`price-to-win`), or clause audit (`compliance-auditor`).