Results for “team-critique”

Runs an adversarial, decision-aware review of all session work before committing, checking decision adherence and code maintainability, and applies only user-authorized fixes.

Audit team performance using the Elon Algorithm (identify A/B/C players) and extract action items from meeting transcripts. Use when asked to "audit team performance", "review my team", "extract meeting actions", "meeting notes to tasks", "team efficiency audit", or "identify underperformers".

Weekly engineering retrospective. (gstack)

Run three agents as a newsroom — a Writer, an Editor, and a Fact-checker — that draft, critique, and verify in parallel and argue until the writing survives with zero flags. This is the level above a single self-review loop, for the pieces that matter most. Best run in Claude Cowork against the user's files. Use for high-stakes writing the user wants bulletproof: a newsletter, a launch post, a client email, a public announcement. Trigger whenever the user says 'run the team', 'use the swarm', 'writer editor fact-checker', 'spawn agents to work on this', or wants the strongest possible version of a piece. For a lighter single-agent loop, use red-pen instead.

Fetch unread GitHub notifications for open PRs where review is requested from a specified team or opened by a team member.

Guide a team through writing a structured, blameless post-mortem after a production incident, covering timeline reconstruction, root cause analysis, impact quantification, and action item generation.

贺炜（体育解说）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：文学比喻嵌入赛况、克制激情、终场金句… 触发：足球诗人解说 等。非煽动球迷对立

Weekly engineering retrospective. (gstack)

Designs high-performing team structures using organizational psychology AND creates new skills on-the-fly when team needs unmet expertise. Expert in team composition, personality balancing, collaboration ritual design, and skill creation for missing capabilities. Use for team design, role definition, skill gap identification. Activates on 'team building', 'team composition', 'skills needed', 'what skills'. NOT for general project management or solo work planning.

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

Layer 4 of the keyword research pipeline. Spawns a "skeptical SEO" adversarial sub-agent to argue against every survivor of Layers 1-3. Catches mechanical-classifier blind spots — wrong SERP intent, hidden link-graph gauntlets, AIO trajectory shifts, vanity-rank metrics. Same pattern as quality-check's adversarial draft read, applied to keyword selection.

Compose a provider-neutral AI team by tiering accessible models on cost-efficiency, capability, latency, and governance, then mapping the 8 processkit role archetypes onto catalog Roles + RoleSlots inside a chartering Scope. Use when bootstrapping a new project team, rotating after a provider change, or quarterly rebalancing. Triggers: "create my AI team", "compose a team", "rebalance the team", "review the team".

Facilitate a structured sprint retrospective to surface insights and produce actionable improvements with owners and deadlines.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "plan team structure", "determine hiring needs", "design org chart", "calculate compensation", "plan equity allocation", or requests organizational design and headcount planning for a startup.

Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does, ranking failure modes by impact, likelihood, and cheapness to test.

ticket-writer

Establish team norms for collaboration and communication. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with team-norms related tasks.

Coaching Analyst

Runs a relentless interview that sharpens a plan or design. Use when the user wants to be grilled on an idea, pressure-test a plan, or refine a design through questioning.

Ruthless team performance audits (Elon Algorithm) and meeting-to-action extraction. Use for performance audits, meeting action items, or org efficiency reviews.

Capture structured feedback on the Han skills and agents used in the current session and optionally post it as a GitHub issue to testdouble/han. Use at the end of any session where one or more han-* skills or agents ran, to rate a run, log what worked and what didn't, or submit observations for maintainers. Does not review code, investigate bugs, or research options; use code-review, investigate, or research for those. Does not provide feedback on skills or agents from non-Han plugins.

Build empowered product teams that own continuous discovery and delivery, shifting from feature factories to outcome-driven innovation.

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Facilitates and documents a team retrospective capturing what went well, what to improve, and action items. Use at the end of sprints, projects, or milestones to reflect and improve team practices.

Weekly engineering retrospective. (gstack)

Summarize Microsoft Teams conversations, triage unread or recent activity, draft follow-ups, and manage Planner tasks through connected Teams data. Use when the user wants to review chats or channels, identify owners and next steps, prepare a safe reply or post, or turn Teams follow-ups into Microsoft Planner tasks.

Plan team outings with activities and logistics. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with team-outing related tasks.

Use to build and maintain a reusable bank of QA criteria as observable decision rules shared across scorecards. Trigger for "criterion library", "standardise our QA criteria", "write better rubric items", "was professional is too vague", versioning criteria across teams, or turning adjectives into pass/fail decision rules with examples.

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Synthesize retrospectives into themes, root causes, decisions, and team improvements.

Performs a comprehensive cross-artifact QA/QC review of a virtual team pipeline, checking completeness, consistency, security, and compliance, then issues an advisory verdict with quality, compliance, and sign-off reports.

Reviews all pipeline artifacts from a virtual software team and produces quality, compliance, and sign-off reports with an advisory release verdict.