Results for “use-cases”

Use to audit whether similar customers with similar failures received similar redress, and to find variation that could not be defended. Trigger for "are our refunds consistent", "do we compensate similar cases the same way", "audit our goodwill decisions", redress fairness review, customers who escalate getting more, or a complaint that someone else was treated better.

Per-page UX audit using NN/g heuristics, Intuit microcopy, and Google HEART. Use when evaluating usability, auditing microcopy, checking UX heuristics, or assessing cognitive load. Cross-page flows/IA → audit-ux-journeys. Layout/breakpoints → audit-responsive. Empty/error states → audit-ui-states.

Audit screens against Nielsen's heuristics and mobile UX best practices using the StyleSeed Toss design language as the implementation context.

This skill should be used when establishing comprehensive QA testing processes for any software project. Use when creating test strategies, writing test cases following Google Testing Standards, executing test plans, tracking bugs with P0-P4 classification, calculating quality metrics, or generating progress reports. Includes autonomous execution capability via master prompts and complete documentation templates for third-party QA team handoffs. Implements OWASP security testing and achieves 90% coverage targets.

Review code changes for correctness, completeness, bugs, edge cases, and quality. Load when the user explicitly asks to review code, check a PR, review a diff, audit recent changes, or verify an implementation matches requirements. Also triggers on "review this code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "code review", "did this implement correctly", "audit this diff", or any explicit request for a formal code review. Do NOT load for "review changes for context" or "review what happened" — those are requests to read code, not to perform a formal review.

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.

Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search / freedom-to-operate / competitive landscape / acquisition diligence / litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Use when the user asks for patent searching or analysis (e.g., 'prior art search for [invention]', 'freedom to operate analysis for [product]'). Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions. Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope.