Results for “find”

Independent DeepSeek-backed adversarial proof-audit step for existing theorem, lemma, proposition, or proof artifacts in Markdown, LaTeX, or proof logs. Use when asked to check, audit, verify, red-team, or adversarially review a proof; when a completed proof task needs a correctness pass; or when a broader proof workflow dispatches an independent reviewer to find gaps, hidden assumptions, counterexamples, or unjustified steps.

Use this skill when the user asks about Driver Qualification Files (DQF) — what must be in a DQ file under 49 CFR 391, retention periods, what's required pre-hire vs ongoing, document expiration tracking, audit-readiness for driver files, common DQF deficiencies that auditors find, or how to handle missing documents on existing drivers. Always cite the specific subsection of 49 CFR 391.

| Use when reviewing an incoming GitHub pull request — runs the multi-level (L1-L5) audit against the PR's real diff range, posts findings as one batched review (inline, summary, or local-only), offers the standard fix chain on NEEDS_FIX, and optionally merges. The maintainer-side counterpart to /hyperflow:issue. Trigger with /hyperflow:pr, "review PR #N", "review this pull request <url>", "audit the PR", "check this contribution".

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.

Use to draw a defensible sample of support conversations for QA review, an audit or a manual analysis, so the results generalise to the population rather than to whatever was easy to pull. Trigger for "which tickets should we review", "how do we pick a sample", "is our QA sampling representative", stratified or risk-based sampling, review coverage design, or a finding based on a handful of hand-picked tickets.

Detect and resolve naming collisions, overlapping intent triggers, and insufficient intent diversity across the skill library. Load when a new skill is created (called by universal-skill-creator), during improvement passes (called by improve-skills), or when the user asks to deconflict skills, check for naming collisions, audit trigger overlap, review intent coverage, find duplicate triggers, check skill names, or says "are any skills too similar", "which skills overlap", "deconflict the library", "check for confusing skill names", "intent audit".

Information Security Management System (ISMS) audit expert for ISO 27001 compliance verification, security control assessment, and certification support. Use when the user mentions ISO 27001, ISMS audit, Annex A controls, Statement of Applicability (SOA), gap analysis, nonconformity management, internal audit, surveillance audit, or security certification preparation. Helps review control implementation evidence, document audit findings, classify nonconformities, generate risk-based audit plans, map controls to Annex A requirements, prepare Stage 1 and Stage 2 audit documentation, and support corrective action workflows.

Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying with before/after screenshots. For plan-mode design review (before implementation), use /plan-design-review. Use when asked to "audit the design", "visual QA", "check if it looks good", or "design polish". Proactively suggest when the user mentions visual inconsistencies or wants to polish the look of a live site. (gstack)

Hard readiness gate before implementation begins — cross-checks the constitution, feature spec, plan, and tasks for consistency, traceability, and unresolved ambiguity. Returns PASS or FAIL with specific findings. Load when the spec-driven-development orchestrator routes /analyze, when the user asks to cross-check spec vs plan, audit traceability, verify spec readiness, gate-check before implementation, or says "is this spec implementation-ready", "trace requirements to tasks", "/analyze", "spec sanity check", "spec readiness gate", "spec consistency check". Output: docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-spec-crosscheck.md.

Score the experience a new customer actually has, not just whether they activated. Grades the first 90 days on the moments that make someone feel taken care of, finds where the welcome goes cold, and hands back a scored audit with the specific fixes. Built for any post-sale team, customizable to your product and lifecycle. Trigger on "audit my onboarding", "score our onboarding experience", "why do new customers churn early", "grade our first 90 days", "where does onboarding go cold", "is our welcome any good", or any onboarding-quality question.

Extract actionable insights from blog posts, web articles, and practitioner content - assess credibility, run security checks, and either improve existing skills or apply to the current project. Load when the user asks to learn from an article, extract insights from a blog post, apply a practitioner's findings, or process engineering blog content. Also triggers on "learn from this article", "learn from this blog post", "extract insights from this post", "what can we learn from this article", "apply this article", or when the user links to a blog, Medium, Substack, dev.to, or engineering blog post.

Extract actionable skill knowledge from academic papers and research articles, assess credibility, run security checks, and either improve existing skills or create new ones. Load when the user asks to learn from a paper, extract insights from a research paper, turn a paper into a skill, apply paper findings to skills, read this paper and improve my skills, or process a research article. Also triggers on "skill from paper", "learn from this paper", "paper to skill", "extract from this research", "apply this paper", or when the user uploads or links to an academic PDF or paper URL.

Perform a structured audit of a codebase covering security, code quality, performance, dependencies, architecture, and testing hygiene, then produce a prioritized findings report. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, code audit, security review, codebase assessment, "look over this repo", "what's wrong with this codebase", legacy-code triage, pre-acquisition technical due diligence, or any request to systematically evaluate the health of a project. Trigger even when the user is casual ("can you eyeball my repo?") — this skill imposes the structure that ad-hoc review misses. This skill audits a whole repository at a point in time — for reviewing a diff or PR use the built-in code-review skill; for security checks on pending changes use security-review.

Federal Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) sweeper backed by FAR Subpart 9.5 (9.501-9.508) and the active Theseus workspace knowledge graph. USE WHEN the user asks about OCI risk on a bid, organizational conflicts, incumbent conflicts, biased ground rules, unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, or any pre-bid OCI due diligence. Pulls `company`, `incumbent`, `subcontractor`, `customer`, `program_office`, and prior-contract relationships from the workspace KG, classifies each potential conflict into one of the three FAR 9.505 classes (biased ground rules, unequal access, impaired objectivity), and emits a structured findings envelope with mitigation recommendations (firewall, NDA, recusal, novation). DO NOT USE FOR FAR clause coverage audit (use `compliance-auditor`), proposal prose (use `proposal-generator`), competitor research (use `competitive-intel`), or pricing (use `price-to-win`).

Default entry point for any research request — a hybrid router that classifies the question deterministically and either delegates to a specialist research skill (pulse for trends/sentiment, grants for NIH funding, litreview for academic literature, syllabus for course reading, patent for prior-art + IP landscape, dossier for entity research) or runs its own plan-decompose-multi-source-search-synthesize-cite fallback workflow when no specialist matches. Always surfaces the routing decision so users can override. Triggers — "research [topic]", "look into [topic]", "what do we know about [topic]", "investigate [topic]", "find me information on [topic]", "do some research on [topic]", "I need to understand [topic]", or any research request that doesn't obviously match a more-specific specialist skill. Output is a markdown briefing (default) or .docx document (on request) with full citations and an audit log.

Decision-grade entity research skill — produces a hypothesis-tested dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org, not a generic profile. Forcing intake makes the user state their hypothesis upfront (what they already believe and want to verify or disprove) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict on the hypothesis, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network and reputation signals, red flags, conversation hooks tied to specific findings, and source-provenance audit log. Uses WebSearch + WebFetch + free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica) as workhorses; optional BYOK MCPs enhance coverage. Use when the user asks for background research, diligence, or meeting prep on a specific entity (e.g., 'prep me for a meeting with [person/company]', 'due diligence on [company]'). Honors sensitivity exclusions for journalism + personal-vetting contexts.

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.