Results for “review-report”

Drive Graphify from its CLI to build, refresh, query, export, and serve a durable code/corpus knowledge graph. Use when the user wants `.graphify/GRAPH_REPORT.md`, `graph.json`, `graph.html`, `graphify update`/`summary`/`query`/`path`/`explain`/`tree`, change-aware review context, git-hook or watch-based refresh, a stdio MCP graph server, or an install into jeo, jeopi, gjc, opencode, Claude, Codex, or Gemini. Also covers the honest structural fallback when native extraction is empty or misleading. Route simple locate/reference work to `codebase-search`, narrative knowledge-base work to `llm-wiki`, and project-memory handoff to `opencontext`. Triggers on: graphify, graphify update, graphify query, knowledge graph CLI, GRAPH_REPORT.md, graph.json, codebase graph, graph refresh, graphify install, graphify serve, review context, affected flows.

Create or amend a self-contained PowerPoint-like HTML briefing slide deck for alignment pages, interrogation questions, research findings, framework/workshop artifacts, specs, reports, or documentation plans. Use when Codex should make review material more visual and navigable while preserving dense alignment/interrogation pages and source documents as linked references instead of auto-opening them.

Full ASVS 5.0 compliance assessment against a codebase and/or architecture diagrams. Reads all 346 controls from the companion CSV, performs targeted code analysis per control, and produces a complete matrix marked COMPLIANT / NON_COMPLIANT / NOT_RELEVANT — with per-control reasoning and evidence (code snippets, file:line references, diagram observations). Outputs a reviewed CSV matrix and a self-contained HTML evidence report.

Reconstruct a product flow, then audit how usable it is — whether it makes sense, where users get confused or stuck, whether the copy and instructions are clear, and where friction causes drop-off. Produces a prioritized, severity-weighted findings report. Works from three inputs: frontend code in a repo, a live running app driven via a browser, or a written flow / spec / screenshots. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a UX review, usability audit, "is this flow confusing", "does this signup/onboarding/checkout make sense", "why are people dropping off", "audit this form", "where's the friction", or hands over a flow and asks whether it's user-friendly. Trigger even on casual phrasings ("is my checkout any good?") — it imposes the structure ad-hoc UX opinions miss. Audits flow usability and friction; for visual polish and interface quality the impeccable audit/critique skills apply instead.