Results for “implementation”

Build, audit, debug, and migrate websites for durable organic discovery and reliable use by search engines, LLMs, and browser agents. Use for SEO audits or implementation; new sites, routes, templates, CMSs, catalogs, or content programs; crawling, rendering, indexing, robots, canonicals, redirects, sitemaps, hreflang, structured data, metadata, links, faceted navigation, JavaScript SEO, Core Web Vitals, or migrations; keyword, intent, architecture, content, local, media, or authority work; traffic, ranking, CTR, or indexation losses; AEO, GEO, AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT search, crawler controls, agent-readable pages, Markdown representations, `Accept: text/markdown` content negotiation, `llms.txt`, WebMCP, or agent interaction design. Trigger whenever code or architecture can materially affect public discoverability or machine usability, even if the user does not say SEO. Do not use for paid-search management alone.

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...

Conduct a design interview, generate 5 distinct UI variations in a temporary route, collect real click-to-comment feedback on the live rendered variants via human-review, and produce an implementation plan. Use when the user wants to explore UI design options, redesign an existing component/page, or create new UI with multiple genuinely different approaches to compare — before writing production code or committing to a direction. For a lighter, single-component variant picker with no interview, use `prototype` instead. For reviewing a UI that's already real (not exploring new directions), use `visual-review`. Source: adapted from github.com/0xdesign/design-plugin's design-lab skill (interview + 5-variant structure), with feedback collection replaced by this repo's own `visual-review` skill (human-review) instead of a bespoke overlay component.

Plan which model tier handles which work BEFORE execution begins — a high-cognition model deeply understands the problem, lays the foundations, then emits a modular plan assigning each module the cheapest tier that can safely execute it, with escalation tripwires and one-way-door protection. Advisory only: it announces "next module → tier X / model Y" at each boundary and the HUMAN switches models — harnesses like Cursor cannot switch mid-run. Load when the user asks which model to use, wants a model plan, model tiers, model-tier routing, assign models to tasks or modules, says "cheap model got stuck", "which model for this task", "cost-efficient model choice", or when implementation-plan / problem-to-plan need a model: tier column. NOT dynamic-routing (plan-path selection after failure) — this skill assigns cognition tiers to work.

Two-party working posture — user as director, agent as executor. Every fork, tradeoff, and taste choice is surfaced via batched AskUserQuestion with structural framing, a recommended default, and concrete previews when comparison is visual, so the human steers direction while the agent handles implementation. Eliminates the review-bottleneck (no giant diff to approve at the end — review is distributed across picks) and prevents codebase-understanding debt (the user remembers the architecture because they picked it). Use whenever the user invokes /duet, or says "work with me", "ask before", "check with me", "I want to decide", "don't assume", "human-in-the-loop", "co-author", "pair with me", "duet", or whenever a task clearly involves aesthetic, architectural, or irreversible strategic decisions — even without those exact words. Pair with the Duet output style to minimize cognitive load between picks.

Tactical fast path: turn a small problem, bug report, edit request, or narrow refactor into three deliverables — a brief change-spec (docs/specs/), a detailed implementation-ready plan (docs/plans/), and a TODO.md with agent-pickable tasks and milestones. Load when the user describes a tactical problem and wants quick planning artifacts, says "plan this change", "create a TODO", "write a plan for this", "problem to plan", "break this into tasks for agents", "I want to change X — plan it", or when process-decomposer routes here after determining the user needs lightweight planning deliverables. Also triggers on "create tasks from this problem", "make this actionable", or "turn this into a plan agents can execute". For feature-sized work that needs an executable spec + constitution + cross-check gate, route to `spec-driven-development` (or `feature-spec`) instead.

Use this skill whenever a developer wants to turn an idea into a complete, production-ready, end-to-end system plan BEFORE writing any code. Trigger on 'plan this system', 'design the architecture for', 'help me blueprint', 'deep plan for X', 'break this idea into components', 'expand into action points', 'full implementation plan', or when the user pastes a project idea wanting architecture, components, pipelines, and file-level execution mapped out. Casual phrasing also triggers: 'help me think this through end-to-end', 'plan before coding'. Also covers living-workspace patterns: self-improving knowledge bases, reflection loops with auditor agents, four-agent teams, schema-as-code, wiki health scoring. **Resume triggers**: 'where did we leave off', 'continue this plan', 'resume my blueprint' - rehydrates state from disk via SESSION.md/NEXT.md/decisions/. Web research is mandatory every invocation.

Expert Socratic discovery skill for exploring ideas, architecture decisions, and technical design before writing any code. Use this skill — proactively and always first — when requirements are vague, when the user is debating between technical approaches, when the problem is unclear, or when a design decision could have significant architectural consequences. Triggers on: "should we use X or Y", "help me think through", "I'm not sure how to approach this", "what's the best architecture for", "trade-offs between", "design before I code", "let's think through this", "I have an idea", "how should I structure", "help me design", "I want to build X but not sure how", "what approach would you recommend", "is this the right way to". Produces a validated design doc with 2-3 implementation options, trade-offs, and a recommendation. Always use before planning when the approach is not yet locked.

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.

Turn a work-items.md file (produced by /plan-work-items) into Linear issues, one per slice, in a single target Linear team. Use when you want to publish work items as Linear issues, create implementation tickets to track in Linear, or push a broken-down plan into a Linear team. Requires a configured Linear MCP server and a target team. Reads the team's real workflow states, labels, Projects, and members and resolves every option against them before creating anything; defaults each issue to the team's initial state, unassigned, uncategorized, with no parent or Project unless you ask. Links within-file `Depends on` relationships as native Linear "blocked by" relations and annotates the source file so re-runs resume cleanly. Does not produce the work-items file itself — use plan-work-items first. Does not post to Jira — use work-items-to-jira. Does not post to GitHub — use work-items-to-issues.

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.

Reviews a product document (PRD, spec, design brief) BEFORE implementation to surface holes — undefined edge cases, missing states, policy gaps — by attacking what the document is SILENT about (things unwritten, and things written only for the happy path). Acts as a strict "sign-off manager," ruling Approve / Conditional / Reject and producing a polite, forwardable question list. Works for planners/PMs (self-review before sharing), engineers (blocking questions before coding), and designers (screen states with no mockup). Use whenever the user wants a spec/PRD/plan/brief checked for readiness or gaps, or says "review this spec", "find holes in this PRD", "poke holes in this", "is this plan good to build?", "can I start implementing this?", "what states/edge cases am I missing?", "what should I ask the PM before coding?", "run devil", or pastes/links a planning document and asks whether it's ready to act on. Do NOT use it to: write or draft a new spec, summarize or translate a document, estimate/break down tic

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.