Results for “design-implementation”

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.

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.

Analyze and automatically remediate MoonSpec artifact inconsistencies across spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md, and related design files. Use when the user asks to run `/moonspec.align`, identify uncertainty, weigh tradeoffs in project context, edit artifacts without asking follow-up questions, resolve coverage gaps, or align generated MoonSpec documents before implementation.

Expert Kubernetes architect specializing in cloud-native infrastructure, advanced GitOps workflows (ArgoCD/Flux), and enterprise container orchestration. Masters EKS/AKS/GKE, service mesh (Istio/Linkerd), progressive delivery, multi-tenancy, and platform engineering. Handles security, observability, cost optimization, and developer experience. Use PROACTIVELY for K8s architecture, GitOps implementation, or cloud-native platform design.

Use when designing, building, or debugging a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server in Node/TypeScript. Triggers: stdio JSON-RPC handshake, tool descriptions as discovery surface, lazy startup vs eager catalog loading, telemetry placement, schema design for tool inputs (zod), tool naming conventions for discoverability, error handling that does not leak stack traces, MCP client compatibility (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor), local resource fetching, secrets and env var handling, distributing as npm + claude mcp add. NOT for MCP client implementation, MCP HTTP transport (different surface), Anthropic Agent SDK building, or non-MCP plugin systems.

Generate implementation plans from approved designs — plan-generator, phase-based plans, parallel batch execution, task dependency graph, owner skill routing, acceptance criteria, global done criteria, plan frontmatter, layout contract, interaction contract, anti-drift rules, plan format, AD-2 byte-for-byte gate, scope definition, execution plan, phases and batches, task anatomy, plan file format

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.

Generate a MoonSpec implementation plan and design artifacts from a single-story spec. Use when the user asks to run or reproduce `/moonspec.plan`, create or update `plan.md`, produce `research.md`, `data-model.md`, `contracts/`, or `quickstart.md`, evaluate repo principles, define separate unit and integration test strategies, and perform repo-aware gap analysis before `/moonspec.tasks`.

GDPR compliance implementation. Data subject rights (access, deletion, portability), consent management, data processing records, PII handling, and privacy by design patterns. USE WHEN: user mentions "GDPR", "data privacy", "right to be forgotten", "data deletion", "consent management", "PII", "data subject request", "privacy policy", "cookie consent" DO NOT USE FOR: authentication - use auth skills; encryption - use `cryptography`; audit logging - use `audit-logging`

Design and apply QA methodology for software teams: test strategy, regression testing, CI failure triage, test automation, quality gates and metrics, risk-based testing, exploratory testing, test design techniques, AI code quality gates (independent verification, acceptance-criteria testability review for agentic Spec-Driven Development), mutation-guided test hardening and review evidence (surviving mutants, weak assertions, diff-aware mutation testing), agentic eval design (dataset test design, judge-as-system-under-test, flaky-eval discipline), QA career levels (Senior/Staff/Principal), and SDET engineering (test infrastructure, gTAA, CI/CD integration). Do not use for root-cause debugging of production incidents, security implementation or threat modeling, or evaluation framework governance and statistical analysis — route those to systematic-debugging, secure-software-engineering, and agent-evals-and-observability respectively.

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 MATLAB apps from requirements to working code. Asks discovery questions (or skips them when the path is known), recommends UIFigure or UIHTML architecture, identifies layout archetype (Dashboard, Explorer, Tabbed, Wizard, Canvas), produces an implementation plan, and executes the build. For UIFigure apps, optionally serializes as App Designer (.mlapp or plain-text .m + .xml). Use when a user wants to build a MATLAB app, create a GUI, make an interactive tool, build a uifigure app, build a uihtml app, build an App Designer app, build a .mlapp app, build a plain-text App Designer app, or asks which approach to use. Also use when user describes spatial layout needs: dashboard, control panel, sidebar, tabs, wizard, stepper, canvas, workspace.

Build multiple genuinely different versions of a UI piece you describe, rendered behind a visual picker so you can flip through them live and promote the one that feels right. Use this proactively, without waiting to be asked, whenever evaluating a new feature, a layout, a section, a visual, a design, or any UI decision — divergent options beat a single guess. Fast, no interview, single-component scope. For a full structured exploration (interview, 5 variants of a whole page, real feedback collection, implementation plan) when the direction itself is still open, use `design-lab` instead — that one requires explicit invocation. Source: github.com/emilkowalski/skills.

Use when asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software and the work is non-trivial — including delivering a change request (issue, ticket, or request) from intake through planning, gates, implementation, review, verified PR, and authorized post-merge release. neckbeard routes the change through framing, discovery, design, implementation, review, verification, delivery, and learning — choosing the smallest *safe* intervention, proving it at the real delivery boundary, and leaving an inspectable evidence ledger. For change-request / issue-to-PR work, conditionally loads a 9-phase journey with gates, delivery packet, and lifecycle integration. Composes specialist catalog skills rather than replacing them. Not a persona, not a '10x developer' prompt, not a LOC-minimizer. The journey is not loaded for plain fixes, refactors, or reviews that lack an issue/ticket trajectory.

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.

Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan or design doc and is about to start coding — to catch architecture issues before implementation. (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "tech review", "technical review", "plan engineering review".

Expert TSA cybersecurity compliance advisor for critical infrastructure owners and operators. Use this skill whenever a user asks about TSA Security Directives for pipelines, freight railroads, passenger rail, public transit, or bus operators; the TSA Cyber Risk Management Program (CRMP); Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (CIP); Cybersecurity Operational Implementation Plan (COIP); Cybersecurity Assessment Plan (CAP); incident reporting to CISA; designation of a Cybersecurity Coordinator; Critical Cyber Systems (CCS); OT/IT network segmentation; the TSA November 2024 NPRM; or any directive in the SD Pipeline-2021 series, SD 1580-21-01 (freight rail), or SD 1582-21-01 (public transit/passenger rail). Also trigger for questions like "are we covered by TSA directives?", "what does the TSA require for pipeline cybersecurity?", "how do I build a CIP?", "what must I report to CISA?", or any request involving transportation critical infrastructure cybersecurity compliance.

Fundamental patterns for effective agentic behavior. Teaches decomposition, tool orchestration, error recovery, context management, quality self-assessment, and knowing when to stop. Model-agnostic principles that make any agent more effective regardless of domain. Activate on: "how should I structure this agent", "agentic workflow", "agent patterns", "multi-step task", "tool orchestration", "/agentic-patterns", "decompose this", "agent best practices", "chain of actions", "when should the agent stop", "agent loop design". NOT for: creating agent infrastructure (use agent-creator), building DAGs (use windags-architect), specific tool implementation.

Run a Virtual Think Tank — a structured multi-persona debate — before planning or making architectural/design/strategic decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is about to plan a system, make a technology choice, evaluate trade-offs, decide on an approach, or faces any decision where multiple perspectives would sharpen the outcome. Also trigger when the user says "think tank", "debate this", "perspectives on", "trade-offs", "should I use X or Y", "help me decide", "before we plan", or asks for pros/cons of competing approaches. This skill should run BEFORE any implementation planning begins — it produces a structured analysis that feeds into better plans.

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.

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program," or "experiment playbook." Use this whenever someone is comparing two approaches and wants to measure which performs better, or when they want to build a systematic experimentation practice. For tracking implementation, see analytics. For page-level conversion optimization, see cro.

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

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 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.