Results for “options”

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

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.

Set a deliberate visual direction before any UI is built — the single biggest lever against generic AI output. Derives a posture from product-soul/PRD/specs, scores a curated archetype palette, then generates 2-3 GENUINELY DISTINCT directions and compares them side-by-side before committing to one. Load when the user asks to pick an aesthetic, choose a design direction, decide what a UI should feel like, explore visual options, says "what should this look like", "make it feel like [Linear/Apple/ Duolingo]", "give me design directions", "explore some looks", or when frontend-design routes here. Replaces design-archetype. Sub-skill of frontend-design.

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research.

Cleans a Quarto (.qmd) file by replacing LaTeX holdovers with proper Quarto/Pandoc syntax so the document renders correctly to HTML, PDF (Typst/LaTeX), and Word. Fixes citations (\citep → [@key]), cross-references (\ref → @label), figures (\includegraphics → markdown), tables, text formatting (\textbf → **bold**), inline math (\( \) → $ $), hyperlinks (\href → [text](url)), footnotes (\footnote → ^[]), list environments, section headings, and R Markdown chunk options (dot-style → #| YAML). Use when asked to clean, fix, modernize, or port a Quarto or R Markdown document; when LaTeX commands appear in a .qmd file; when a document fails to render to Word or Typst; or when citations/cross-references do not appear in non-LaTeX output.

Turn a rough idea into a fully approved design before any code is written. Load when the user wants to brainstorm, explore ideas, design a feature, think through approaches, plan a new capability, or figure out what to build. Also triggers on "let's think through", "help me design", "explore options", "what's the best approach for", "I have an idea for", "before we build", or any request to design something before implementation. Enforces a hard gate: no code, no implementation until user approves a design. For executable feature specs (FRs, NFRs, ACs as Given/When/Then), route to `feature-spec` instead — brainstorming owns approach and architecture, not machine-readable requirements.

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

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.

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.

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.

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.