[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AES9B79QAC72MCS3ESGENC":3,"skill-same:01M6AES9B79QAC72MCS3ESGENC":72},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":43,"linkOnly":44,"markdownContent":45,"markdownBody":46,"frontMatter":47,"refName":48,"commitSha":49,"skillDirectory":50,"forksCount":51,"repositoryHtmlUrl":52,"repositoryHomepageUrl":53,"ownerHtmlUrl":54,"ownerBlogUrl":55,"ownerDescription":56,"updatedAt":57,"install":58,"resources":71},"01M6AES9B79QAC72MCS3ESGENC","receiving-code-review",null,"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","davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates","davila7","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F6216945?v=4","01M6ADEWWFPS191NFM0Y1EX1JH","Daniel Avila","01M6ADJHGM78PHQRD3XZTFDVKK",33286,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdevelopment\u002Freceiving-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42],"code review","review","receiving code review","code","verification","feedback","technical","code review feedback","use","implementation","implementing","review feedback","when","agreement","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: receiving-code-review\ndescription: 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\n---\n\n# Code Review Reception\n\n## Overview\n\nCode review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.\n\n**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.\n\n## The Response Pattern\n\n```\nWHEN receiving code review feedback:\n\n1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting\n2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)\n3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality\n4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?\n5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback\n6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each\n```\n\n## Forbidden Responses\n\n**NEVER:**\n- \"You're absolutely right!\" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)\n- \"Great point!\" \u002F \"Excellent feedback!\" (performative)\n- \"Let me implement that now\" (before verification)\n\n**INSTEAD:**\n- Restate the technical requirement\n- Ask clarifying questions\n- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong\n- Just start working (actions > words)\n\n## Handling Unclear Feedback\n\n```\nIF any item is unclear:\n  STOP - do not implement anything yet\n  ASK for clarification on unclear items\n\nWHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.\n```\n\n**Example:**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n\n❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later\n✅ RIGHT: \"I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.\"\n```\n\n## Source-Specific Handling\n\n### From your human partner\n- **Trusted** - implement after understanding\n- **Still ask** if scope unclear\n- **No performative agreement**\n- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment\n\n### From External Reviewers\n```\nBEFORE implementing:\n  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?\n  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?\n  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?\n  4. Check: Works on all platforms\u002Fversions?\n  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?\n\nIF suggestion seems wrong:\n  Push back with technical reasoning\n\nIF can't easily verify:\n  Say so: \"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate\u002Fask\u002Fproceed]?\"\n\nIF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:\n  Stop and discuss with your human partner first\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully\"\n\n## YAGNI Check for \"Professional\" Features\n\n```\nIF reviewer suggests \"implementing properly\":\n  grep codebase for actual usage\n\n  IF unused: \"This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?\"\n  IF used: Then implement properly\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it.\"\n\n## Implementation Order\n\n```\nFOR multi-item feedback:\n  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST\n  2. Then implement in this order:\n     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)\n     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)\n     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)\n  3. Test each fix individually\n  4. Verify no regressions\n```\n\n## When To Push Back\n\nPush back when:\n- Suggestion breaks existing functionality\n- Reviewer lacks full context\n- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)\n- Technically incorrect for this stack\n- Legacy\u002Fcompatibility reasons exist\n- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions\n\n**How to push back:**\n- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness\n- Ask specific questions\n- Reference working tests\u002Fcode\n- Involve your human partner if architectural\n\n**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** \"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K\"\n\n## Acknowledging Correct Feedback\n\nWhen feedback IS correct:\n```\n✅ \"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]\"\n✅ \"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location].\"\n✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]\n\n❌ \"You're absolutely right!\"\n❌ \"Great point!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for catching that!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for [anything]\"\n❌ ANY gratitude expression\n```\n\n**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.\n\n**If you catch yourself about to write \"Thanks\":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.\n\n## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback\n\nIf you pushed back and were wrong:\n```\n✅ \"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now.\"\n✅ \"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing.\"\n\n❌ Long apology\n❌ Defending why you pushed back\n❌ Over-explaining\n```\n\nState the correction factually and move on.\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n| Mistake | Fix |\n|---------|-----|\n| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |\n| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |\n| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |\n| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |\n| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |\n| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |\n| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |\n\n## Real Examples\n\n**Performative Agreement (Bad):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n❌ \"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that...\"\n```\n\n**Technical Verification (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n✅ \"Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?\"\n```\n\n**YAGNI (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export\"\n✅ \"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?\"\n```\n\n**Unclear Item (Good):**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix items 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n✅ \"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing.\"\n```\n\n## GitHub Thread Replies\n\nWhen replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos\u002F{owner}\u002F{repo}\u002Fpulls\u002F{pr}\u002Fcomments\u002F{id}\u002Freplies`), not as a top-level PR comment.\n\n## The Bottom Line\n\n**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**\n\nVerify. Question. Then implement.\n\nNo performative agreement. Technical rigor always.\n","# Code Review Reception\n\n## Overview\n\nCode review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.\n\n**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.\n\n## The Response Pattern\n\n```\nWHEN receiving code review feedback:\n\n1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting\n2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)\n3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality\n4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?\n5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback\n6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each\n```\n\n## Forbidden Responses\n\n**NEVER:**\n- \"You're absolutely right!\" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)\n- \"Great point!\" \u002F \"Excellent feedback!\" (performative)\n- \"Let me implement that now\" (before verification)\n\n**INSTEAD:**\n- Restate the technical requirement\n- Ask clarifying questions\n- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong\n- Just start working (actions > words)\n\n## Handling Unclear Feedback\n\n```\nIF any item is unclear:\n  STOP - do not implement anything yet\n  ASK for clarification on unclear items\n\nWHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.\n```\n\n**Example:**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n\n❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later\n✅ RIGHT: \"I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.\"\n```\n\n## Source-Specific Handling\n\n### From your human partner\n- **Trusted** - implement after understanding\n- **Still ask** if scope unclear\n- **No performative agreement**\n- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment\n\n### From External Reviewers\n```\nBEFORE implementing:\n  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?\n  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?\n  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?\n  4. Check: Works on all platforms\u002Fversions?\n  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?\n\nIF suggestion seems wrong:\n  Push back with technical reasoning\n\nIF can't easily verify:\n  Say so: \"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate\u002Fask\u002Fproceed]?\"\n\nIF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:\n  Stop and discuss with your human partner first\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully\"\n\n## YAGNI Check for \"Professional\" Features\n\n```\nIF reviewer suggests \"implementing properly\":\n  grep codebase for actual usage\n\n  IF unused: \"This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?\"\n  IF used: Then implement properly\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it.\"\n\n## Implementation Order\n\n```\nFOR multi-item feedback:\n  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST\n  2. Then implement in this order:\n     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)\n     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)\n     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)\n  3. Test each fix individually\n  4. Verify no regressions\n```\n\n## When To Push Back\n\nPush back when:\n- Suggestion breaks existing functionality\n- Reviewer lacks full context\n- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)\n- Technically incorrect for this stack\n- Legacy\u002Fcompatibility reasons exist\n- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions\n\n**How to push back:**\n- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness\n- Ask specific questions\n- Reference working tests\u002Fcode\n- Involve your human partner if architectural\n\n**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** \"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K\"\n\n## Acknowledging Correct Feedback\n\nWhen feedback IS correct:\n```\n✅ \"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]\"\n✅ \"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location].\"\n✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]\n\n❌ \"You're absolutely right!\"\n❌ \"Great point!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for catching that!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for [anything]\"\n❌ ANY gratitude expression\n```\n\n**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.\n\n**If you catch yourself about to write \"Thanks\":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.\n\n## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback\n\nIf you pushed back and were wrong:\n```\n✅ \"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now.\"\n✅ \"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing.\"\n\n❌ Long apology\n❌ Defending why you pushed back\n❌ Over-explaining\n```\n\nState the correction factually and move on.\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n| Mistake | Fix |\n|---------|-----|\n| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |\n| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |\n| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |\n| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |\n| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |\n| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |\n| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |\n\n## Real Examples\n\n**Performative Agreement (Bad):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n❌ \"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that...\"\n```\n\n**Technical Verification (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n✅ \"Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?\"\n```\n\n**YAGNI (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export\"\n✅ \"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?\"\n```\n\n**Unclear Item (Good):**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix items 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n✅ \"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing.\"\n```\n\n## GitHub Thread Replies\n\nWhen replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos\u002F{owner}\u002F{repo}\u002Fpulls\u002F{pr}\u002Fcomments\u002F{id}\u002Freplies`), not as a top-level PR comment.\n\n## The Bottom Line\n\n**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**\n\nVerify. Question. Then implement.\n\nNo performative agreement. Technical rigor always.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","2b749c82b5d11fac39d9a6e021ce3f5b8a541bd1","cli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdevelopment\u002Freceiving-code-review",3909,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates","https:\u002F\u002Faitmpl.com","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7","https:\u002F\u002Fdanielavila.me","Building AI dev tools with LLMs","2026-11-11 11:53:30",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":59,"prompt":69,"zipAvailable":70},[60,63,66],{"tool":61,"command":62},"npx","npx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill receiving-code-review",{"tool":64,"command":65},"bunx","bunx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill receiving-code-review",{"tool":67,"command":68},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill receiving-code-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdevelopment\u002Freceiving-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[73,101,126,157,192,216],{"skillNo":74,"name":75,"nameZh":6,"description":76,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":77,"categories":78,"keywords":82,"publishedAt":43},"01M70NHBTQ8BV0A2SCAZXEPHCX","wealthville-pool-scoring","Score DeFi liquidity pools before providing liquidity. Returns a 0-100 pool score and an Enter\u002FHold\u002FExit\u002FReduce\u002FAvoid verdict with calibrated confidence for ~68,800 Solana pools and 575 EVM pools, plus a public miss-inclusive track record. Use when asked whether a pool is worth LPing into, which pools look best right now, or how accurate the scores have actually been.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fweb-data\u002Fwealthville-pool-scoring\u002FSKILL.md",[79],{"categoryNo":80,"categoryName":81,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,37,41,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100],"scoring","pool","wealthville pool scoring","liquidity","which","for","exit","now","reduce","with","record","track","verdict","evm","solana","how","public","look",{"skillNo":102,"name":103,"nameZh":6,"description":104,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":105,"categories":106,"keywords":108,"publishedAt":43},"01M70MB6VR8ERJ4EM8D5KHBMEV","technical-debt-auditor","Scans a codebase and produces a quantified technical debt report with a prioritized remediation plan. Analyzes dead code, TODO\u002FFIXME\u002FHACK markers, dependency staleness, complexity hotspots, code duplication signals, test coverage gaps, unused exports, and outdated patterns. Use this skill when the user asks to audit their codebase for tech debt, wants a health check of their code quality, says things like \"where should I focus refactoring\", \"find code smells\", \"audit my codebase\", \"what technical debt do we have\", \"prioritize cleanup work\", or asks about code quality metrics. Also trigger when the user mentions \"code rot\", \"legacy cleanup\", \"refactoring priorities\", or wants to understand the overall health of a project before a major effort. Trigger even if the user doesn't say \"technical debt\" explicitly — any request to systematically assess code quality and identify improvement priorities belongs here.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdevelopment\u002Ftechnical-debt-auditor\u002FSKILL.md",[107],{"categoryNo":80,"categoryName":81,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[109,110,35,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,41,32,119,120,121,122,123,124,125],"technical debt","debt","technical debt auditor","auditor","coverage","complexity","markers","project","cleanup","unused","todo","work","plan","focus","signals","audit","dependency",{"skillNo":127,"name":128,"nameZh":6,"description":129,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":130,"categories":131,"keywords":139,"publishedAt":43},"01M70KPYH9QNHCNME5GJQGE22K","readonly-sql-guard","Make an agent's database access provably read-only. Use when an agent runs caller-supplied SQL against a production\u002FERP\u002Fanalytics database (a \"query\" MCP tool, text-to-SQL, an admin console), or when reviewing DB-access code for write\u002FDDL\u002Fside-effect\u002Ftransaction-escape risks. Checks what a statement CALLS, not just its shape.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdatabase\u002Freadonly-sql-guard\u002FSKILL.md",[132,135,136],{"categoryNo":133,"categoryName":134,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000010","后端与接口",{"categoryNo":80,"categoryName":81,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":137,"categoryName":138,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000033","数据分析师",[140,141,142,143,144,145,146,88,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,37,154,155,41,156],"readonly","guard","sql guard","sql","readonly sql guard","erp","effect","read-only","db","just","tool","calls","only","MCP","access","database","query",{"skillNo":158,"name":159,"nameZh":6,"description":160,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":161,"licenseFileUrl":162,"sourceHtmlUrl":163,"categories":164,"keywords":168,"publishedAt":43},"01M6AFY6F7CC2BBZP1QD6VTNVC","web-artifacts-builder","Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artifacts using modern frontend web technologies (React, Tailwind CSS, shadcn\u002Fui). Use for complex artifacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn\u002Fui components - not for simple single-file HTML\u002FJSX artifacts.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Futilities\u002Fweb-artifacts-builder\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Futilities\u002Fweb-artifacts-builder\u002FSKILL.md",[165],{"categoryNo":166,"categoryName":167,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",[169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,88,191],"artifacts builder","web","web artifacts builder","artifacts","builder","state","routing","state management","component","css","frontend","ui","Tools","file","components","shadcn","react","Tailwind","suite","jsx","html","single-file","ui components",{"skillNo":193,"name":194,"nameZh":6,"description":195,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":161,"licenseFileUrl":196,"sourceHtmlUrl":197,"categories":198,"keywords":203,"publishedAt":43},"01M6AFWF33SFV9Z3SF4PEEE4BF","webapp-testing","Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fwebapp-testing\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fwebapp-testing\u002FSKILL.md",[199,202],{"categoryNo":200,"categoryName":201,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":166,"categoryName":167,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[204,205,206,207,208,170,209,179,180,210,211,212,213,88,214,92,215],"webapp testing","testing","webapp","browser","playwright","applications","debugging","toolkit","logs","screenshots","local","behavior",{"skillNo":217,"name":218,"nameZh":6,"description":219,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":161,"licenseFileUrl":220,"sourceHtmlUrl":221,"categories":222,"keywords":230,"publishedAt":43},"01M6AF67Q67JJJ5V51JR2P52KA","discernment-nudge","After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Fdiscernment-nudge\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Fdiscernment-nudge\u002FSKILL.md",[223,226,227],{"categoryNo":224,"categoryName":225,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":80,"categoryName":81,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":228,"categoryName":229,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,172,239,182,32,240,30,241,242,243,152,244,41,245,246,247,248,249,98,250],"discernment nudge","nudge","interpretation","help","run","reasoning","data","writing","lookup","content","conversation","short","up","invoke","you","analysis","claims","argument","assemble","recommendations"]