Results for “wan”

When the user wants to audit or optimize an App Store or Google Play listing. Also use when the user mentions 'ASO audit,' 'app store optimization,' 'optimize my app listing,' 'improve app visibility,' 'app store ranking,' 'audit my listing,' 'why aren't people downloading my app,' 'improve my app conversion,' 'keyword optimization for app,' or 'compare my app to competitors.' Use when the user shares an App Store or Google Play URL and wants to improve it.

Exploit-phase writing — assembles raw material into a journey of beats, grounding each term before a beat leans on it. Use when the user has raw material and wants it turned into an article.

Anti-AI-slop design skill for greenfield pages, audits, redesigns, and design extraction from URLs or screenshots. Use when the user asks to build a new app or landing page, wants to redesign something, invokes Hallmark by name, or uses audit/redesign/study.

Anti-AI-slop design skill for greenfield pages, audits, redesigns, and design extraction from URLs or screenshots. Use when the user asks to build a new app or landing page, wants to redesign something, invokes Hallmark by name, or uses audit/redesign/study.

When the user wants to audit or optimize an App Store or Google Play listing. Also use when the user mentions 'ASO audit,' 'app store optimization,' 'optimize my app listing,' 'improve app visibility,' 'app store ranking,' 'audit my listing,' 'why aren't people downloading my app,' 'improve my...

Audit a codebase, UI, or copy for machine-generated tells across prose, visual/UI, code, and structure/IA, then produce a phased de-slop burndown. Use when the user says "feels AI-generated", "looks like AI slop", "reads like ChatGPT", "feels generic/soulless", or wants an authenticity/voice pass before launch.

Verify references in an academic paper: check whether each BibTeX entry is real, whether in-text citations match the cited paper's actual content, and produce a structured verification report. Use when user says "验证参考文献", "ref verify", "check references", "核实引用", "引用是否正确", or wants to audit citations in a LaTeX manuscript.

Weed the Allium garden. Find where Allium specifications and implementation code have diverged, and help resolve the divergences. Use when the user wants to check spec-code alignment, compare specs against implementation, audit for spec drift or violations, sync specs with code or code with specs, or verify whether the implementation matches what the spec says.

When the user wants help with pricing decisions, packaging, or monetization strategy. Also use when the user mentions 'pricing,' 'pricing tiers,' 'freemium,' 'free trial,' 'packaging,' 'price increase,' 'value metric,' 'Van Westendorp,' 'willingness to pay,' 'monetization,' 'how much should I charge,' 'my pricing is wrong,' 'pricing page,' 'annual vs monthly,' 'per seat pricing,' 'should I offer a free plan,' 'pricing page teardown,' 'pricing page audit,' 'is my pricing page AI-readable,' or 'can AI read my pricing.' Use this whenever someone is figuring out what to charge, how to structure their plans, or wants to audit a pricing page (for humans and for the AI agents that shortlist tools). For in-app upgrade screens, see paywalls. For offer construction (bonuses, guarantees, value framing, naming) on services/courses/coaching/high-ticket B2B, see offers.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "reflect on skills from memory", "audit marketplace skills against memory", "从记忆中检查 skills 的问题", "反思并修改 skill", "apply memory feedback to skills", or wants to turn accumulated memory feedback about this marketplace's skills into concrete skill fixes. Reads the project's persistent memory, re-verifies each known skill problem against current code, then fixes the skill or corrects the stale memory.

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)

Assess the test suite of a codebase — where tests are missing, where they exist but are weak, and which gaps actually matter. Use this skill whenever the user asks about test coverage, test quality, "are there enough tests", "where should we add tests", testing gaps, test debt, untested code paths, flaky tests, or generally wants to know whether a codebase is well-tested. Trigger even on casual phrasings ("is this tested?", "what's the test situation?", "audit our tests"). This skill does NOT write tests — it only assesses what exists and identifies what's missing. For test generation, this is the wrong skill.

Manage Bitwarden vaults, items, folders, collections, organizations, and Sends through the bw CLI, including authentication, password generation, and import/export.

Deploy and configure Wazuh SIEM/XDR for endpoint detection including agent management, custom decoder and rule XML creation, alert querying via the Wazuh REST API, and automated response actions.

Audits codebases for common security vulnerabilities that AI coding assistants introduce in "vibe-coded" applications. Checks for exposed API keys, broken access control (Supabase RLS, Firebase rules), missing auth validation, client-side trust issues, insecure payment flows, and more. Use this skill whenever the user asks about security, wants a code review, mentions "vibe coding", or when you're writing or reviewing code that handles authentication, payments, database access, API keys, secrets, or user data — even if they don't explicitly mention security. Also trigger when the user says things like "is this safe?", "check my code", "audit this", "review for vulnerabilities", or "can someone hack this?".

English LaTeX academic paper assistant for existing `.tex` projects. Use this skill whenever the user wants to compile, lint, audit, or improve an English LaTeX conference or journal paper such as IEEE, ACM, Springer, NeurIPS, or ICML submissions. Trigger even when the user only mentions one paper issue, such as bibliography errors, grammar cleanup, sentence splitting, logic review, expression polishing, translation, title optimization, figure checks, pseudocode review, algorithm block cleanup, de-AI editing, or experiment-section review. Also trigger for "proofread my paper", "fix my LaTeX", "prepare for submission", "check my manuscript", "improve my writing", `algorithm2e`, `algorithmicx`, `algpseudocodex`, `Require/Ensure`, or "Algorithm 1" when the user has a .tex file.

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.

Design the architecture for a multi-command skill system — the shared state schema, the command map, the router, and the boundary each command stops at — before any skill files get written. Use when the user wants to turn one skill into a system, combine several related or overlapping skills into a single coherent one, build a skill with subcommands (like `/thing audit`, `/thing polish`), design a suite, family, or collection of skills, or asks "how should I structure this skill set". Also trigger on "skill system", "skill architecture", "multi-command skill", "system of skills", "make these skills work together", "skill with slash commands", or complaints that their skills overlap, collide, duplicate each other, or never fire. Produces an architecture spec only — it never writes SKILL.md or reference files. Hand the finished spec to skill-creator to build from.

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.

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.