Results for “focus”

When the user wants to create or optimize in-app paywalls, upgrade screens, upsell modals, or feature gates. Also use when the user mentions "paywall," "upgrade screen," "upgrade modal," "upsell," "feature gate," "convert free to paid," "freemium conversion," "trial expiration screen," "limit reached screen," "plan upgrade prompt," "in-app pricing," "free users won't upgrade," "trial to paid conversion," or "how do I get users to pay." Use this for any in-product moment where you're asking users to upgrade. Distinct from public pricing pages (see cro) — this focuses on in-product upgrade moments where the user has already experienced value. For pricing decisions, see pricing.

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.

Research what people are actually saying about a topic in the last 30 days across Reddit, X / Twitter, YouTube, Hacker News, dev.to, Medium, and other public discourse platforms. API-free; uses WebSearch with platform-targeted site operators plus recency filters. Produces DISCOURSE.md (a structured brief) and JSON output the writer can consume. Complements blog-researcher (which focuses on authority sources) with a recency-and-engagement lens. Use when user says "blog discourse", "discourse research", "what are people saying about", "research what people are saying", "voice of customer", "social listening", "30-day research", "trend research", "what's the discussion on", "real-time research", "practitioner discourse", "/blog discourse".

Simulates a full multi-reviewer journal review PANEL — 5 personas (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + a Devil's Advocate) debate a manuscript and produce a consensus Editorial Decision (accept/minor/major/reject) plus a prioritized Revision Roadmap. Modes: full, re-review (verify revisions addressed prior comments), quick, methodology-focus, Socratic guided. Use for: simulate peer review, mock review panel, editorial review before submission, multiple reviewer perspectives, re-review of a revised manuscript, or 'critique my paper hard'. For a single-reviewer referee report use alterlab-peer-review; for rubric/grade scoring use alterlab-scholar-eval; to write/revise the paper use alterlab-paper-writer. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

Turn a chosen design direction into a canonical DESIGN.md plus production tokens that don't look vibecoded — state-level colors (8-step neutral ramp, rest/hover/active/ disabled, focus ring), APCA-checked contrast, typography, spacing/radius/motion/elevation, an icon strategy, and component contracts for the core atoms. Emits tokens in the project's stack format (shadcn HSL vars or Tailwind v4 @theme). Load when the user asks to build a design system, generate design tokens, create a DESIGN.md, set up a theme, design a color or type system, pick icons, or when frontend-design routes here. Replaces design-tokens-craft and icon-craft. Sub-skill of frontend-design. Reads DIRECTION.md first.

Expert product strategy advisor for Senior PMs. Use this skill — proactively and without waiting to be asked — whenever defining a product vision, setting quarterly OKRs, building a roadmap, choosing between competing bets, entering a new product area, or when stakeholders disagree on direction. Also triggers for: "what should we prioritize", "we need a north star", "how do we choose between X and Y", "roadmap conflict", "what are our bets this quarter", "strategy alignment", "choosing what NOT to build", "three bets with trade-offs", "stakeholder misalignment on direction", "product direction for next quarter", "OKR planning". Produces a decision-focused strategy doc: North Star metric, Opportunity Tree, three bets with explicit trade-offs (including do nothing), and a recommended bet with its key assumption.

Predicts the highest-impact next action for your project by running a 5-agent meta-DAG pipeline. Gathers project signals automatically (git, recent files, port-daddy, CLAUDE.md), then runs sensemaker → decomposer → skill-selector + premortem → synthesizer. When execution is approved, convert each predicted node into a skillful node prompt using skillful-node-prompt + skillful-subagent-creator, prefer live WinDAGs visualization backed by POST /api/execute and /ws/execution/:id, and fall back to ASCII only when live visualization is unavailable. Activate on: "what should I do", "what's next", "next move", "/next-move", "where should I focus", "what's the highest impact thing right now". NOT for: creating skills, debugging one specific bug, or promising topology-specific runtime behavior the current server cannot execute.

Creates decision-focused PRDs and product specs — the kind that make explicit decisions, not document hopes. Make sure to use this skill whenever someone asks to write, review, draft, or improve any product document, including PRDs, feature specs, requirements docs, or product specifications. Trigger even when the user doesn't say "PRD" explicitly — phrases like "write a spec for X", "define requirements for Y", "what should my PRD include", "help me document this feature", or "my spec feels too vague" all apply. Do not attempt to write the PRD directly without consulting this skill. Produces 5-stage PRDs with behavior contracts (15-25 labeled examples for AI features), measurable success metrics with specific thresholds, precise rollout plans with percentages and ramp gates, and antipattern detection. Works for AI features, SaaS, mobile apps, and traditional software.

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.