Claude Code Skills

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.

Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session

Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".

Delegate coding to Claude Code CLI (features, PRs).

Inspect codebases w/ pygount: LOC, languages, ratios.

Delegate coding to OpenAI Codex CLI (features, PRs).

Review PRs: diffs, inline comments via gh or REST.

Index a codebase with GitNexus and serve an interactive knowledge graph via web UI + Cloudflare tunnel.

Delegate coding to xAI Grok Build CLI (features, PRs).

Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review).

| Supply chain investigation, evidence recovery, and forensic analysis for GitHub repositories. Covers deleted commit recovery, force-push detection, IOC extraction, multi-source evidence collection, hypothesis formation/validation, and structured forensic reporting. Inspired by RAPTOR's 1800+ line OSS Forensics system.

Parallel 3-agent cleanup of recent code changes.

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.

Implement a piece of work based on a spec or set of tickets.

> Decision guide for delegating to caveman-style subagents. Tells the main thread WHEN to spawn `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit), or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of doing the work inline or using vanilla `Explore`. Subagent output is caveman-compressed so the tool-result injected back into main context is ~60% smaller — main context lasts longer across long sessions. Trigger: "delegate to subagent", "use cavecrew", "spawn investigator/builder

> Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.

Upgrades existing websites and apps to premium quality. Audits current design, identifies generic AI patterns, and applies high-end design standards without breaking functionality. Works with any CSS framework or vanilla CSS.

Find and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues. Two modes — report (sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report, no edits) and fix (audit→edit→verify loop on a target). Prefers direct-CDP live-DOM auditing; falls back to a browser-MCP composition or HTML-string audits.

Diff a live page's accessibility violations against a baseline — by default compares uncommitted changes (stash-based), or pass --branch [<name>] to diff against a branch. Reports only new violations introduced, violations fixed, and pre-existing count. Use `scan` for a full audit with no diffing.

Audit a live page for accessibility issues, locate each WCAG violation precisely, and return a selector-grounded fix worklist without editing.

Runs a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.

Angular performance optimization and best practices guide. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring Angular code for optimal performance, bundle size, and rendering efficiency.

Master software architect specializing in modern architecture

Use GitHub Copilot CLI in non-interactive mode to ask questions, review code, or generate snippets without manual interaction.

Expert in secure backend coding practices specializing in input validation, authentication, and API security. Use PROACTIVELY for backend security implementations or security code reviews.

Architecture audit that maps module dependencies, checks layering integrity, and flags structural decay across a codebase, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to audit architecture, review folder/module structure, check for circular imports, understand...

AI code reviewer grounded in classic software engineering books for catching design smells, coupling issues, and architectural risks.

PR code review that surfaces decay risks, design smells, and maintainability issues with concrete Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy findings, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to review code, check a PR, shares a diff or pastes code asking...

Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic...

Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock...

Parallel read-only multi-agent root-cause investigation for bugs, regressions, crashes, flaky behavior, or unexplained failures. Use when the user asks to investigate a bug, find the root cause, trace a regression, understand why something broke, or wants a ranked diagnosis with the...

Expert C4 Code-level documentation specialist. Analyzes code directories to create comprehensive C4 code-level documentation including function signatures, arguments, dependencies, and code structure.

Universal coding standards, best practices, and patterns for TypeScript, JavaScript, React, and Node.js development.