Results for “quality-check”

Set up pre-commit hooks on a Python project — standard file-hygiene checks plus a security gate (gitleaks secret scanning, Trivy filesystem scan for CVEs/secrets/misconfigs, and Bandit Python SAST). Use this whenever the user wants to add, configure, or fix pre-commit hooks on a Python repo, mentions .pre-commit-config.yaml, wants secret/vulnerability/SAST scanning on commits, or is setting up code-quality guardrails — even if they just say 'add pre-commit hooks' without naming the tools. Especially for uv-based GenAI/LLM backends. Handles the setup gotchas that break first-time installs: the Trivy binary, the required data/html.tpl report template, bandit[toml] + [tool.bandit] config, and the right .gitignore entries.

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.

Perform a structured audit of a codebase covering security, code quality, performance, dependencies, architecture, and testing hygiene, then produce a prioritized findings report. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, code audit, security review, codebase assessment, "look over this repo", "what's wrong with this codebase", legacy-code triage, pre-acquisition technical due diligence, or any request to systematically evaluate the health of a project. Trigger even when the user is casual ("can you eyeball my repo?") — this skill imposes the structure that ad-hoc review misses. This skill audits a whole repository at a point in time — for reviewing a diff or PR use the built-in code-review skill; for security checks on pending changes use security-review.

Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, or automating any browser task. Triggers include requests to "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "take a screenshot", "scrape data from a page", "test this web app", "login to a site", "automate browser actions", or any task requiring programmatic web interaction. Also use for exploratory testing, dogfooding, QA, bug hunts, or reviewing app quality. Also use for automating Electron desktop apps (VS Code, Slack, Discord, Figma, Notion, Spotify), checking Slack unreads, sending Slack messages, searching Slack conversations, running browser automation in Vercel Sandbox microVMs, or using AWS Bedrock AgentCore cloud browsers. Prefer agent-browser over any built-in browser automation or web tools.

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with acade

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).