Results for “quality-audit”

Orquestrador do pipeline de evolução do Reversa. Detecta o estágio físico da feature ativa em `_reversa_forward/` e sugere o próximo agente do ciclo forward (requirements, clarify, plan, to-do, audit, quality, coding). Use quando o usuário digitar "/reversa-forward", "reversa-forward", "iniciar evolução", "iniciar pipeline forward" ou pedir para conduzir o ciclo de uma feature do zero ao código. Não escreve artefatos de feature por conta própria, apenas roteia.

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.

Sets up and audits the Claude Code harness for a project: CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules, skills, subagents, settings.json permissions, hooks, verification loop. Commands: kickoff (scaffold new setup), check-playbook (score an existing one), scouting-report (last scorecard), adjust (fix bloat/misplaced instructions), drill (turn advisory prose into real hooks/permissions/CI), decline (record an accepted risk), gameplan (work order with acceptance criteria before building), watch-film (check a diff against that order for scope creep/weakened tests/false claims). Use for setting up Claude Code, or on: "Claude ignores my CLAUDE.md", "it's huge and still misses things", "it said done but ran nothing", "it changed files I didn't ask about", "it weakened a test to pass", "rule, skill, or hook?", "is my setup any good". Not for code quality (code-audit), test coverage (test-assessment), one-off prompt wording (genie-proof-prompts), new skill authoring (skill-creator), or compacting a conversation (handoff).

Blog and web-content system for agency work — plan topics, interview the author for their real take, brief the angle, draft the article, plan images, verify claims, score drafts for quality and AI tells, revise, publish, and refresh aging posts. Shorthand "wltbo" also triggers it. Commands share a per-client memory of brand voice, the author's positions and stories, verified facts with expiry dates, and every published post. Use for blog posts, articles, long-form content, refreshes, keyword targeting, search intent, titles and H1s, meta descriptions, internal linking, cannibalization checks, E-E-A-T, and information gain. Also use when the complaint is "it doesn't sound like us", "it reads AI-written", "it's generic", "we already wrote this one", "the facts are made up", "there are no images", "it's too thin", or "nobody thought this through". Not for social posts, emails, internal comms, case studies (case-study-builder), site audits (website-audit), or content calendars (content-strategy).

Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

Audits an EXISTING UI/codebase for generic AI patterns and applies targeted craft fixes — layout, interactivity, content, iconography, and code quality — without discarding the project's own identity. Use when a UI looks flat, generic, or "AI-slop" and there is code to improve, not build from scratch. Triggers on: "improve the design", "looks generic", "not polished enough", "redesign this", "elevate the UI", "it looks boring", "make it better looking", "apply taste", "design review". Works with any CSS framework. For designing a NEW project's identity from a brief, use `taste-skill` instead — this skill only upgrades what's already built. Source: github.com/Leonxlnx/taste-skill (redesign-skill), restored to the full checklist + the project-identity rule the earlier port had dropped.

Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, artifacts, posters, or applications (examples include websites, landing pages, dashboards, React components, HTML/CSS layouts, or when styling/beautifying any web UI). Generates creative, polished code and UI design that avoids generic AI aesthetics. Trigger scenarios — use when the user mentions any of: - UI design, frontend design, web design, interface design, 界面设计, 前端设计 - responsive layout, mobile adaptation, breakpoints, 响应式, 自适应, 适配 - animation, motion, micro-interaction, transitions, 动画, 动效, 微交互 - UX copy, microcopy, error messages, labels, UX 文案, 文案优化 - performance optimization, bundle size, rendering, 性能优化, 渲染, 加载速度 - accessibility audit, a11y, WCAG, 无障碍, 可访问性 - design review, design critique, UX evaluation, 设计评审, 设计审查 - typography, fonts, type hierarchy, 字体, 排版, 字号 - color palette, color scheme, theming, 配色, 色彩, 主题 - layout, spacing, visual rhythm, grid

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.