Results for “contract-review”

Agent profile for design test strategy across unit, integration, contract, E2E, visual, performance, and regression layers. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

Use ONLY for code review and test write/review guidance in `packages/agent-core-v2` (the DI × Scope agent engine). Does NOT apply to the legacy `packages/agent-core` or to any other package — for those, do not load this skill. Groups the review and testing lenses used for agent-core-v2 — `slop` (single-level-of-abstraction / layered error-handling review, invoked only on explicit request) and `test` (contract-driven per-test rules for both authoring and reviewing tests). Apply the sub-skill that matches the task; do not apply `slop` unprompted.

Design and operate bounded multi-agent workflows with task decomposition, dependency graphs, ownership, handoff contracts, shared-state controls, approvals, recovery, and synthesis. Use when a task contains genuinely independent workstreams, specialized roles, parallel research or implementation, reviewer-worker loops, or coordination problems that one agent should not execute sequentially.

Designs the contract for an API change inside one codebase — a component's props, a function surface, URL or query parameters, an event payload, or a module boundary — through a discovery pass, an options document with one recommendation, a question round, and an adversarial validation round, with every element of the contract justified from one stated goal. Use when you want to design, shape, decide, or nail down an interface, contract, signature, or API change for a capability you can already describe, sized for roughly one pull request. Produces a design document and changes no code. Does not specify what a feature should do — use plan-a-feature. Does not plan delivery or sequencing — use plan-implementation. Does not assess the architecture of existing code — use architectural-analysis. Does not write the code — use tdd. Does not restructure existing code — use refactor. Runs its rounds without pausing for review; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

Use when writing or reviewing tests, or when asked how to write a good single test. Encodes the per-test rules behind the "test the contract / responsibility, not the implementation" principle — name and structure one behavior per `it`, drive through the public surface, stub only true external boundaries, control time and config via documented knobs, and keep tests clear, isolated, and refactor-resilient. The same rules drive both authoring (write mode) and auditing existing tests (review mode).

Turn vague "what did I do?" into evidence-backed impact statements for performance reviews, self-reviews, promotion packets, and weekly updates. Uniquely mines Copilot CLI session logs to reconstruct forgotten work, plus git commits and GitHub PRs. Enforces a 3-part impact contract (action → result → evidence). Works standalone with zero dependencies. Trigger for: "brag", "log work", "what did I do", "backfill my work history", "performance review", "self-review", "self assessment", "write impact statement", "review prep", "promo packet", "promotion case", "weekly update", "status report", "accomplishments", "what did I ship", "I forgot to log my work", "summarize my work", "track my wins", "what should I highlight", "end of half", "career growth", "work journal", or any request to document, summarize, or organize work accomplishments.

Design, implement, harden, and verify Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers with precise tool contracts, least-privilege authorization, safe transports, structured errors, and interoperability tests. Use when creating a new MCP server, exposing an API or data source through MCP, reviewing an MCP server design, adding or revising MCP tools, or preparing an MCP server for production.

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

Build work collaboratively in reviewable pieces, handing each piece back for review before starting the next, so the person stays in the lead and steers while the work happens instead of reviewing a finished result. Use when someone says to pair with them on something, asks to collaborate rather than direct, wants to review as it goes, or wants to guide the work piece by piece — on code, on a design decision, or on writing. For a test-first build it runs tdd, for restructuring it runs refactor, for an interface contract it runs design-an-api, and for plan work it runs iterative-plan-review or plan-implementation, each collaboratively; invoke any of those directly instead to run it straight through without pausing. Does not pace someone through code that already exists and builds nothing — use code-walkthrough. Does not explain, summarize, or research something instead of producing it — use code-overview or research.

Use for writing, reviewing, debugging, or testing Python code that inspects, edits, extracts, validates, preserves, or generates Excel .xlsx or .xlsm workbooks. Trigger on workbook contracts, formulas and cached values, Excel Tables, defined names, OOXML parts, types and precision, macros, charts, hidden sheets, external links, and semantic workbook verification. Do not use for CSV-only work, dataframe computation with no workbook boundary, Excel UI automation, recalculation, connection refresh, or macro execution.

Builds a feature implementation plan from an existing feature specification (or equivalent context) through a facilitated team conversation. Use when the user wants to plan how to implement, build, deliver, or ship a feature that has already been specified. Does not specify what the feature should do — use plan-a-feature first. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not refine or stress-test an already-written plan — use iterative-plan-review. Runs its resolution rounds to completion and holds its questions until after they finish; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

Designs REST and GraphQL APIs following production best practices for resource naming, error handling, versioning, authentication, and documentation. Use this skill when designing new API endpoints, reviewing API contracts, implementing GraphQL schemas, establishing API conventions for a project, or writing API documentation. Apply when creating any route in Next.js API routes or route handlers, any Supabase Edge Function, or any backend endpoint — even if it starts small, these patterns prevent painful rewrites later.

Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt with a code block the user wants you to act on. Also fires when planning architectural changes, picking algorithms or data structures, or evaluating dependency upgrades. Calls the code MCP tool to retrieve an engineering scaffold (failure pattern, procedure, correct-pattern example, verification step) before generating. Catches hallucinated APIs, lost edge cases, premature algorithm commitment, silent contract violations, refactors that change behavior masked by passing tests. Do NOT trigger for pure code reading with no action requested, simple syntax questions, file...

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research.

Creates decision-focused PRDs and product specs — the kind that make explicit decisions, not document hopes. Make sure to use this skill whenever someone asks to write, review, draft, or improve any product document, including PRDs, feature specs, requirements docs, or product specifications. Trigger even when the user doesn't say "PRD" explicitly — phrases like "write a spec for X", "define requirements for Y", "what should my PRD include", "help me document this feature", or "my spec feels too vague" all apply. Do not attempt to write the PRD directly without consulting this skill. Produces 5-stage PRDs with behavior contracts (15-25 labeled examples for AI features), measurable success metrics with specific thresholds, precise rollout plans with percentages and ramp gates, and antipattern detection. Works for AI features, SaaS, mobile apps, and traditional software.

Use to CREATE or REVIEW a Job to be Done (JTBD) in Alan Klement's demand-side, progress-based sense — a job is the progress a customer is trying to make, never a task or feature. Trigger whenever someone wants to write or draft a JTBD, job statement, or job story; figure out the real motivation, struggle, or progress behind a feature, request, or product; understand why customers switch, adopt, or churn; turn interview notes or research into jobs; or pressure-test, sharpen, or rewrite existing JTBDs into proper jobs. Also trigger on "grill my JTBD", "is this a real job or just a task/feature", "what's the actual job here", "why would they switch". In an A-Team target repo, jobs are durable artifacts — this skill writes docs/product/jtbd/NN-<slug>.md per CONTRACT.md and never deletes or silently rewrites a job. Do NOT use for writing PRDs, roadmaps, tickets, or acceptance criteria (those consume a finished JTBD), or for implementation user stories.