Results for “architecture”

>- Skill Refiner, the eval-guided improvement loop for SKILL.md files. Runs the bootstrap, score, propose, apply, and status cycle as a thin wrapper over the published @intentsolutions/refiner CLI, proposing safe, minimal, bounded SKILL.md edits and accepting an edit only when a held-out eval score strictly improves with no regression on any other case. Ships a 3-layer cost-tiered hook architecture (sinker, line, hook) that gates skill quality at edit time, end of turn, and commit time. Use when improving an existing skill, refining a SKILL.md against measured behavior, bootstrapping an eval set for a skill, or gating skill edits before they ship. Trigger with "/j-rig", "refine this skill", "bootstrap an eval set", "propose a skill edit", "promote the candidate", or "skill refiner status".

Cria visualizações 3D interativas de arquitetura de software usando Three.js, gerando HTML standalone com cenas navegáveis por câmera livre. Use esta skill sempre que o usuário pedir para visualizar arquitetura, módulos, dependências, camadas ou hierarquia de chamadas em 3D. Deve ser ativada quando o usuário mencionar termos como "code city", "cidade de código", "arquitetura 3D", "dependency graph 3D", "module map 3D", "layer stack 3D", "call graph 3D", "architecture tour", "tour pela arquitetura", "visualizar software em 3D", "Three.js" no contexto de software, ou pedir para explorar a estrutura de um sistema com câmera 3D. Funciona com JSON de módulos (nome, pasta, LOC, complexidade) e dependências (grafo orientado). Sempre gera HTML standalone completo. Quando rodada pelo Time Reversa Docs, usa Three.js servido localmente em assets/vendor/ (offline-first).

Restructure existing code without changing its behavior, through a test-gated refactoring loop: a named target, a green suite over that target before any edit, a planned sequence of small named refactorings, and the full suite re-run after every step. Use when the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, simplify, or improve the design of existing code, or to apply refactoring recommendations from a code-review or architectural-analysis report. This skill changes code; it does not review code (use code-review), assess architecture (use architectural-analysis), or build new behavior test-first (use tdd). Do not use it on code inside an active tdd loop; the refactor step of tdd owns that cleanup. Runs its planned sequence to completion without pausing for review; to review each named refactoring as it lands, use pairing.

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.

AI/LLM red-team assessment using the OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025) + OWASP AI Testing Guide (AITG v1, Nov 2025) frameworks, plus OWASP MCP Top 10 runtime testing for agentic/MCP targets. Tests prompt injection, jailbreaks, system prompt leakage, sensitive data extraction, excessive agency, improper output handling, model extraction, content bias, evasion, membership inference, MCP token exposure, MCP command injection, and more. Uses four tools in combination: FuzzyAI (single-turn jailbreak fuzzing), PyRIT (multi-turn orchestrated attacks), Garak (probe-based vulnerability scanning), and promptfoo (plugin-based red-team evaluation). Each tool covers different OWASP categories; running them together gives systematic coverage. Includes a conditional MCP reconnaissance phase and a post-access AI infrastructure phase (chained from /post-exploit). Produces: OWASP LLM Top 10 + AITG + MCP coverage matrix, findings per category, architecture diagram of the AI system, PoCs for confirmed exploits. Chains into /gh-export for

Maintains persistent project context for Business Central AL extensions across sessions, developers, and AI agents. Combines two complementary mechanisms: Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) that capture why technical decisions were made, and Session Handoff documents that capture where the project is right now. Generates, updates, and queries both document types. Use this skill whenever starting a new coding session on an existing project, ending a session and need to document progress, onboarding a new developer or AI agent to an existing codebase, explaining why a technical decision was made, wondering why something is designed a certain way, resuming work after a break, or handing off work between team members. Also trigger when the user says 'document this decision', 'why is this designed like this', 'where did we leave off', 'catch me up', 'what was decided', 'create an ADR', 'end of session', 'handoff', or 'context for next session'.

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.

Expert strategy advisor for products built on LLMs or agents — not general product strategy (see `product-strategy` for that). Use this — proactively and without waiting to be asked — whenever choosing where to apply AI in a product, deciding between RAG and fine-tuning, designing how much autonomy an AI feature should have, evaluating whether an AI feature is actually defensible, or deciding whether to add AI to a feature at all. Also triggers for: "should this be an agent or a simple LLM call", "how much autonomy should this feature have", "RAG vs fine-tuning", "is this AI feature defensible", "our AI feature keeps hallucinating and users don't trust it", "should we build this with AI or just ship it deterministic", "AI product wedge", "what happens to this feature when the models get better", "human-in-the-loop design for AI features". Produces a decision-focused brief: the wedge, the architecture choice, the autonomy level, and the defensibility bet — each with an explicit trade-off.

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.