claude-skills

Example project-specific skill template based on a real production application.

Analyze raw prompts, identify intent and gaps, match ECC components (skills/commands/agents/hooks), and output a ready-to-paste optimized prompt. Advisory role only — never executes the task itself. TRIGGER when: user says "optimize prompt", "improve my prompt", "how to write a prompt for", "help me prompt", "rewrite this prompt", or explicitly asks to enhance prompt quality. Also triggers on Chinese equivalents: "优化prompt", "改进prompt", "怎么写prompt", "帮我优化这个指令". DO NOT TRIGGER when: user wants the task executed directly, or says "just do it" / "直接做". DO NOT TRIGGER when user says "优化代码", "优化性能", "optimize performance", "optimize this code" — those are refactoring/performance tasks, not prompt optimization.

Pythonic idioms, PEP 8 standards, type hints, and best practices for building robust, efficient, and maintainable Python applications.

Python testing strategies using pytest, TDD methodology, fixtures, mocking, parametrization, and coverage requirements.

PyTorch deep learning patterns and best practices for building robust, efficient, and reproducible training pipelines, model architectures, and data loading.

Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a feature is ready for testing or asks "does this work?". Three tiers: Quick (critical/high only), Standard (+ medium), Exhaustive (+ cosmetic). Produces before/after health scores, fix evidence, and a ship-readiness summary. For report-only mode, use /qa-only.

Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a feature is ready for testing or asks "does this work?". Three tiers: Quick (critical/high only), Standard (+ medium), Exhaustive (+ cosmetic). Produces before/after health scores, fix evidence, and a ship-readiness summary. For report-only mode, use /qa-only.

Report-only QA testing. Systematically tests a web application and produces a structured report with health score, screenshots, and repro steps — but never fixes anything. Use when asked to "just report bugs", "qa report only", or "test but don't fix". For the full test-fix-verify loop, use /qa instead. Proactively suggest when the user wants a bug report without any code changes.

Report-only QA testing. Systematically tests a web application and produces a structured report with health score, screenshots, and repro steps — but never fixes anything. Use when asked to "just report bugs", "qa report only", or "test but don't fix". For the full test-fix-verify loop, use /qa instead. Proactively suggest when the user wants a bug report without any code changes.

Report-only QA testing. Systematically tests a web application and produces a structured report with health score, screenshots, and repro steps — but never fixes anything. Use when asked to "just report bugs", "qa report only", or "test but don't fix". For the full test-fix-verify loop, use /qa instead. Proactively suggest when the user wants a bug report without any code changes.

Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a feature is ready for testing or asks "does this work?". Three tiers: Quick (critical/high only), Standard (+ medium), Exhaustive (+ cosmetic). Produces before/after health scores, fix evidence, and a ship-readiness summary. For report-only mode, use /qa-only.

Codified expertise for quality control, non-conformance investigation, root cause analysis, corrective action, and supplier quality management in regulated manufacturing. Informed by quality engineers with 15+ years experience across FDA, IATF 16949, and AS9100 environments. Includes NCR lifecycle management, CAPA systems, SPC interpretation, and audit methodology. Use when investigating non-conformances, performing root cause analysis, managing CAPAs, interpreting SPC data, or handling supplier quality issues.

RFC-driven multi-agent DAG execution pattern with quality gates, merge queues, and work unit orchestration.

Search the memory tree for relevant context before starting work. Spawns a background search of all memory folders.

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

Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", or "decompose conditional". Also trigger when cleaning up legacy code, preparing code for new features by restructuring, or identifying which transformation to apply to a specific code smell. Covers smell-driven refactoring, safe transformation sequences, and testing guards. For code quality foundations, see clean-code. For managing complexity, see software-design-philosophy.

Audit and fix visual hierarchy, spacing, color, and depth in web UIs. Use when the user mentions "my UI looks off", "fix the design", "Tailwind styling", "color palette", "visual hierarchy", "design system", "spacing scale", or "component styling". Also trigger when building consistent design tokens, creating dark mode themes, improving data visualization clarity, or polishing UI details before launch. Covers grayscale-first workflow, constrained design scales, shadows, and component styling. For typeface selection, see web-typography. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics.

Decision framework for choosing between regex and LLM when parsing structured text — start with regex, add LLM only for low-confidence edge cases.

Build production-ready systems with stability patterns: circuit breakers, bulkheads, timeouts, and retry logic. Use when the user mentions "production outage", "circuit breaker", "timeout strategy", "deployment pipeline", "chaos engineering", "bulkhead pattern", "retry with backoff", or "health checks". Also trigger when designing resilient microservices, planning zero-downtime deployments, or investigating cascading failure scenarios. Covers capacity planning, health checks, and anti-fragility patterns. For data systems, see ddia-systems. For system architecture, see system-design.