[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6C2MEN46EB2M052Z1NQJGMJ":3,"skill-same:01M6C2MEN46EB2M052Z1NQJGMJ":110},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":27,"publishedAt":62,"linkOnly":63,"markdownContent":64,"markdownBody":65,"frontMatter":66,"refName":83,"commitSha":84,"skillDirectory":85,"forksCount":86,"repositoryHtmlUrl":87,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":88,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":89,"install":90,"resources":103},"01M6C2MEN46EB2M052Z1NQJGMJ","design-retro-publishability-gate",null,"Final whole-docset publishability gate for design-retro \u002F adversarial-doc swarm workflows. Use as the LAST stage of any design-retro, solutions-hardening, \u002Finnov, pr-retro, or code-quality-swarm run, after all writer\u002Fverifier lanes finish and before the PR description claims the docset is \"ready\" or \"publishable\". Catches cross-document contradictions, present-tense staleness vs current HEAD, leaked machine paths\u002Ftokens, unmarked superseded docs, false-green copyable commands, and git diff --check hygiene issues that per-finding adversarial review structurally cannot see.","jleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills","jleechanorg","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F221404966?v=4","01M6C1VJ99XG950X1DWPEBCBGX","01M6C1VJDK5YVDNT3362RT5WSB",6,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills_archive\u002F2026-08-27-historical-zero-use\u002Fdesign-retro-publishability-gate\u002FSKILL.md",[17,22],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000032","设计师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61],"design","design retro publishability gate","retro","gate","writer","diff","never","only","ready","fix","artifact","synthesize","paths","cold","companion","re","candidate","2026","use","read","repo","swarm","code-quality","Bash","ZeRO","pull","issues","git","pr description","planning","code","run","pr","workflows","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: design-retro-publishability-gate\ndescription: Final whole-docset publishability gate for design-retro \u002F adversarial-doc swarm workflows. Use as the LAST stage of any design-retro, solutions-hardening, \u002Finnov, pr-retro, or code-quality-swarm run, after all writer\u002Fverifier lanes finish and before the PR description claims the docset is \"ready\" or \"publishable\". Catches cross-document contradictions, present-tense staleness vs current HEAD, leaked machine paths\u002Ftokens, unmarked superseded docs, false-green copyable commands, and git diff --check hygiene issues that per-finding adversarial review structurally cannot see.\ntype: skill\nscope: repo\nowner: $USER\nversion: 1.0.0\ntriggers:\n  - \"publishability gate\"\n  - \"final design-retro check\"\n  - \"is this docset publishable\"\n  - \"whole-docset review before publishing\"\n  - \"synthesize-report final check\"\nallowed-tools:\n  - Bash\n  - Read\n  - Grep\ncontext:\n  - \"Root cause: PR https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F$GITHUB_REPOSITORY\u002Fpull\u002F8191 ran ~180 adversarial agents across design-retro, solutions-hardening, innov, pr-retro, and code-quality lanes, validating\u002Frefuting candidate FINDINGS, but never re-read the assembled markdown as a single publishable artifact. A cold review found six defect classes still present in already-'confirmed' docs. Full writeup: docs\u002Fdesign-retro-2026-06-adversarial-gaps.md (this repo). This SKILL.md is the fix (bead rev-qj6qb).\"\n  - \"This mirrors and operationalizes ~\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fswarm\u002FSKILL.md rule 11 ('Publishability gate') for THIS repo. If that user-scope rule's wording changes, re-sync the checklist below rather than let them drift.\"\n  - \"This is a planning\u002Fprocess gate, not application code. Nothing here does keyword\u002Fregex SEMANTIC judgment (contradiction detection, staleness detection, supersession detection) in a script — those three items are LLM-judgment checklist items by design, per this repo's ZFC principle (CLAUDE.md 'Zero-Framework Cognition'). The companion script only does mechanical, non-semantic checks: secret-shape pattern matching, shell syntax validation, and git's own diff --check.\"\n---\n\n# Design-Retro Publishability Gate\n\n## When to use this skill\n\nRun this gate exactly once, as the final stage, in any workflow that:\n\n- fans out multiple writer agents across sibling docs (design-retro, solutions-hardening, `\u002Finnov`, pr-retro, code-quality swarms), and\n- uses single-file write locks per agent (so no single agent ever held the whole docset in context), and\n- is about to have its PR description say the docset is \"ready\", \"publishable\", or \"final\".\n\nDo **not** substitute this for per-finding adversarial verification (evidence\u002Fseverity\u002Fdesign lenses). This gate assumes those already ran. It exists because per-finding verification structurally cannot see problems that only exist at the whole-docset level (contradictions between docs, stale corrections, leaked paths, unmarked superseded plans).\n\n## Why per-finding review misses this (do not re-derive this — it is proven)\n\nFrom `docs\u002Fdesign-retro-2026-06-adversarial-gaps.md` §2, six structural reasons, condensed:\n\n1. Verifiers ran on candidate findings *before* doc writers wrote the rendered markdown — nothing ever re-read the shipped prose.\n2. Single-file write locks (needed for parallel-safety) guaranteed no agent ever held two docs in context, so cross-doc contradictions were invisible by construction.\n3. Corrections landed only in the doc that produced them; the top-level report (written earlier, by a different agent) was never reopened.\n4. No freshness re-baseline: docs were checked against one HEAD; later commits changed ground truth; present-tense claims went stale silently.\n5. Policy compliance (ZFC \u002F ZFC-leveling \u002F credential-discipline \u002F regex bans) was never a review lens — a recommendation can be evidentially true and still be forbidden.\n6. The one lane structurally positioned to catch all of this (`synthesize-report`) failed on provider overload in the original PR #8191 run and was finished by hand, without gate checks.\n\n## The checklist (run in this order)\n\nRun the automated subset first (cheap, deterministic); only spend LLM judgment on the items that need it.\n\n### Automated (companion script — run first)\n\n```bash\nscripts\u002Fcheck_design_retro_publishability.sh \u003Cdoc1.md> [doc2.md ...]\n```\n\n| # | Check | What it does | Exit signal |\n|---|-------|---------------|--------------|\n| 3 | **Redaction sweep** | Greps every doc for machine-path and token-shape patterns (`\u002FUsers\u002F\u003Cname>`, `ghp_`\u002F`gho_`\u002F`github_pat_`, `x-access-token`, `serviceAccountKey.json`, AWS\u002F`sk-` key shapes). Fixed pattern list, not a semantic classifier. | FAIL line + matched line numbers |\n| 5 | **Copyable command syntax validity** | Extracts every fenced ` ```bash `\u002F` ```sh `\u002F` ```shell ` block and runs `bash -n` (syntax-only, no execution) | FAIL line + parser error |\n| 6 | **Mechanical hygiene** | `git diff --check \u003Cbase> -- \u003Cfiles>` — trailing whitespace, conflict markers | FAIL line + diff |\n\nThis is intentionally the automatable third of the checklist. It does **not** run any command in the docs, and it does not judge whether a command's *expected outcome* is correct (see item 5 below, which stays manual) — it only proves the shell syntax parses.\n\n### LLM-judgment (semantic — do these by hand, one pass over the WHOLE docset in context)\n\n1. **Cross-document consistency.** Every numeric claim in a top-level\u002Fsummary doc must match its per-finding source doc. Read all sibling docs in the SAME context window (this is the one step single-file write locks structurally prevented during authoring) and diff every repeated number\u002Fclaim. Any disagreement blocks publication until one doc is corrected and the other explicitly cites it. Real example this caught: PR #8191's top-level report repeated an \"89%\" unprefixed-commit figure after `05-process...md` had already corrected it to \"~14-36%\".\n2. **Current-head freshness re-baseline.** Re-check every present-tense claim (\"X is missing\", \"Y has not shipped\") against the PR's *current* head SHA, not the SHA the doc was originally verified against. Historical evidence that is still true only \"at the time of writing\" must be re-worded as \"at base `\u003Csha>`\". Real example: later branch commits (`.beads` dedupe, `rev-18xst` priority\u002Fremediation) changed current state while docs stayed present-tense stale.\n3. **Superseded-doc markers.** Every finding must have exactly one authoritative doc. If a brainstorm\u002Fplan track was overtaken by a later, more-detailed design doc, the earlier one needs an explicit banner pointing to the authoritative doc — silence is a defect, not an acceptable draft state. Real example: PR #8191 had contradicting route counts (3 vs \"3 of ~8\" vs \"8 inline + ~15 additional\") across three docs, none marked superseded.\n4. **Policy lens.** Check every recommendation against repo-specific hard law that the evidence\u002Fseverity\u002Fdesign lenses never covered: ZFC \u002F ZFC-leveling file boundaries (`.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fzfc-leveling-roadmap\u002FSKILL.md`), credential-discipline (`.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fcredential-discipline` \u002F `~\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fcredential-discipline\u002FSKILL.md`), no-unapproved-regex-on-LLM-output (CLAUDE.md). A recommendation can be evidentially true, severe, and well-designed, and still be forbidden — e.g. PR #8191 plan docs proposed registering a backend XP-threshold fallback the ZFC-leveling contract explicitly forbids.\n5. **Copyable-command *expected-outcome* validity.** Beyond syntax (automated above): does the acceptance criterion for each command state the CORRECT expected color? A negative\u002Fregression test should assert red, not green. Real example: PR #8191's `06-level-up...md:169` acceptance step asserted the gate CI job goes *green* on a PR that intentionally reintroduces the violation — the correct expectation is red.\n\n## After the gate\n\n- If the automated script FAILs: fix the doc, re-run the script on just the changed file(s), do not re-run the whole LLM pass unless the fix could have introduced a new cross-doc contradiction.\n- If any LLM-judgment item finds a defect: open (or reuse) a bead citing the exact doc:line, fix in-branch, and re-run item 1 (cross-doc consistency) once more before calling the docset done — a fix to one doc is itself a new opportunity for the sibling docs to go stale.\n- Only after both halves pass: the PR description may say the docset is publishable. Cite this gate (`.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fdesign-retro-publishability-gate\u002FSKILL.md`) and its result in the PR's evidence section.\n\n## Non-goals \u002F what this skill deliberately does NOT do\n\n- It does not replace per-finding adversarial verification (evidence\u002Fseverity\u002Fdesign lenses) — it runs strictly after them.\n- It does not implement contradiction\u002Fstaleness\u002Fsupersession detection as regex or keyword matching in the script. Those are inherently semantic judgments (per this repo's Zero-Framework Cognition principle) and stay as an LLM checklist, not application logic.\n- It does not execute any command found in the docs — the syntax check is `bash -n` only, never a live run.\n","# Design-Retro Publishability Gate\n\n## When to use this skill\n\nRun this gate exactly once, as the final stage, in any workflow that:\n\n- fans out multiple writer agents across sibling docs (design-retro, solutions-hardening, `\u002Finnov`, pr-retro, code-quality swarms), and\n- uses single-file write locks per agent (so no single agent ever held the whole docset in context), and\n- is about to have its PR description say the docset is \"ready\", \"publishable\", or \"final\".\n\nDo **not** substitute this for per-finding adversarial verification (evidence\u002Fseverity\u002Fdesign lenses). This gate assumes those already ran. It exists because per-finding verification structurally cannot see problems that only exist at the whole-docset level (contradictions between docs, stale corrections, leaked paths, unmarked superseded plans).\n\n## Why per-finding review misses this (do not re-derive this — it is proven)\n\nFrom `docs\u002Fdesign-retro-2026-06-adversarial-gaps.md` §2, six structural reasons, condensed:\n\n1. Verifiers ran on candidate findings *before* doc writers wrote the rendered markdown — nothing ever re-read the shipped prose.\n2. Single-file write locks (needed for parallel-safety) guaranteed no agent ever held two docs in context, so cross-doc contradictions were invisible by construction.\n3. Corrections landed only in the doc that produced them; the top-level report (written earlier, by a different agent) was never reopened.\n4. No freshness re-baseline: docs were checked against one HEAD; later commits changed ground truth; present-tense claims went stale silently.\n5. Policy compliance (ZFC \u002F ZFC-leveling \u002F credential-discipline \u002F regex bans) was never a review lens — a recommendation can be evidentially true and still be forbidden.\n6. The one lane structurally positioned to catch all of this (`synthesize-report`) failed on provider overload in the original PR #8191 run and was finished by hand, without gate checks.\n\n## The checklist (run in this order)\n\nRun the automated subset first (cheap, deterministic); only spend LLM judgment on the items that need it.\n\n### Automated (companion script — run first)\n\n```bash\nscripts\u002Fcheck_design_retro_publishability.sh \u003Cdoc1.md> [doc2.md ...]\n```\n\n| # | Check | What it does | Exit signal |\n|---|-------|---------------|--------------|\n| 3 | **Redaction sweep** | Greps every doc for machine-path and token-shape patterns (`\u002FUsers\u002F\u003Cname>`, `ghp_`\u002F`gho_`\u002F`github_pat_`, `x-access-token`, `serviceAccountKey.json`, AWS\u002F`sk-` key shapes). Fixed pattern list, not a semantic classifier. | FAIL line + matched line numbers |\n| 5 | **Copyable command syntax validity** | Extracts every fenced ` ```bash `\u002F` ```sh `\u002F` ```shell ` block and runs `bash -n` (syntax-only, no execution) | FAIL line + parser error |\n| 6 | **Mechanical hygiene** | `git diff --check \u003Cbase> -- \u003Cfiles>` — trailing whitespace, conflict markers | FAIL line + diff |\n\nThis is intentionally the automatable third of the checklist. It does **not** run any command in the docs, and it does not judge whether a command's *expected outcome* is correct (see item 5 below, which stays manual) — it only proves the shell syntax parses.\n\n### LLM-judgment (semantic — do these by hand, one pass over the WHOLE docset in context)\n\n1. **Cross-document consistency.** Every numeric claim in a top-level\u002Fsummary doc must match its per-finding source doc. Read all sibling docs in the SAME context window (this is the one step single-file write locks structurally prevented during authoring) and diff every repeated number\u002Fclaim. Any disagreement blocks publication until one doc is corrected and the other explicitly cites it. Real example this caught: PR #8191's top-level report repeated an \"89%\" unprefixed-commit figure after `05-process...md` had already corrected it to \"~14-36%\".\n2. **Current-head freshness re-baseline.** Re-check every present-tense claim (\"X is missing\", \"Y has not shipped\") against the PR's *current* head SHA, not the SHA the doc was originally verified against. Historical evidence that is still true only \"at the time of writing\" must be re-worded as \"at base `\u003Csha>`\". Real example: later branch commits (`.beads` dedupe, `rev-18xst` priority\u002Fremediation) changed current state while docs stayed present-tense stale.\n3. **Superseded-doc markers.** Every finding must have exactly one authoritative doc. If a brainstorm\u002Fplan track was overtaken by a later, more-detailed design doc, the earlier one needs an explicit banner pointing to the authoritative doc — silence is a defect, not an acceptable draft state. Real example: PR #8191 had contradicting route counts (3 vs \"3 of ~8\" vs \"8 inline + ~15 additional\") across three docs, none marked superseded.\n4. **Policy lens.** Check every recommendation against repo-specific hard law that the evidence\u002Fseverity\u002Fdesign lenses never covered: ZFC \u002F ZFC-leveling file boundaries (`.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fzfc-leveling-roadmap\u002FSKILL.md`), credential-discipline (`.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fcredential-discipline` \u002F `~\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fcredential-discipline\u002FSKILL.md`), no-unapproved-regex-on-LLM-output (CLAUDE.md). A recommendation can be evidentially true, severe, and well-designed, and still be forbidden — e.g. PR #8191 plan docs proposed registering a backend XP-threshold fallback the ZFC-leveling contract explicitly forbids.\n5. **Copyable-command *expected-outcome* validity.** Beyond syntax (automated above): does the acceptance criterion for each command state the CORRECT expected color? A negative\u002Fregression test should assert red, not green. Real example: PR #8191's `06-level-up...md:169` acceptance step asserted the gate CI job goes *green* on a PR that intentionally reintroduces the violation — the correct expectation is red.\n\n## After the gate\n\n- If the automated script FAILs: fix the doc, re-run the script on just the changed file(s), do not re-run the whole LLM pass unless the fix could have introduced a new cross-doc contradiction.\n- If any LLM-judgment item finds a defect: open (or reuse) a bead citing the exact doc:line, fix in-branch, and re-run item 1 (cross-doc consistency) once more before calling the docset done — a fix to one doc is itself a new opportunity for the sibling docs to go stale.\n- Only after both halves pass: the PR description may say the docset is publishable. Cite this gate (`.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fdesign-retro-publishability-gate\u002FSKILL.md`) and its result in the PR's evidence section.\n\n## Non-goals \u002F what this skill deliberately does NOT do\n\n- It does not replace per-finding adversarial verification (evidence\u002Fseverity\u002Fdesign lenses) — it runs strictly after them.\n- It does not implement contradiction\u002Fstaleness\u002Fsupersession detection as regex or keyword matching in the script. Those are inherently semantic judgments (per this repo's Zero-Framework Cognition principle) and stay as an LLM checklist, not application logic.\n- It does not execute any command found in the docs — the syntax check is `bash -n` only, never a live run.\n",{"name":5,"type":67,"owner":68,"scope":48,"context":69,"version":73,"triggers":74,"description":7,"allowed-tools":80},"skill","$USER",[70,71,72],"Root cause: PR https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F$GITHUB_REPOSITORY\u002Fpull\u002F8191 ran ~180 adversarial agents across design-retro, solutions-hardening, innov, pr-retro, and code-quality lanes, validating\u002Frefuting candidate FINDINGS, but never re-read the assembled markdown as a single publishable artifact. A cold review found six defect classes still present in already-'confirmed' docs. Full writeup: docs\u002Fdesign-retro-2026-06-adversarial-gaps.md (this repo). This SKILL.md is the fix (bead rev-qj6qb).","This mirrors and operationalizes ~\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fswarm\u002FSKILL.md rule 11 ('Publishability gate') for THIS repo. If that user-scope rule's wording changes, re-sync the checklist below rather than let them drift.","This is a planning\u002Fprocess gate, not application code. Nothing here does keyword\u002Fregex SEMANTIC judgment (contradiction detection, staleness detection, supersession detection) in a script — those three items are LLM-judgment checklist items by design, per this repo's ZFC principle (CLAUDE.md 'Zero-Framework Cognition'). The companion script only does mechanical, non-semantic checks: secret-shape pattern matching, shell syntax validation, and git's own diff --check.","1.0.0",[75,76,77,78,79],"publishability gate","final design-retro check","is this docset publishable","whole-docset review before publishing","synthesize-report final check",[51,81,82],"Read","Grep","main","42ccd02cbf5e8e47839dc3eab6fc754dc6b339cf",".claude\u002Fskills_archive\u002F2026-08-27-historical-zero-use\u002Fdesign-retro-publishability-gate",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg","2026-11-12 14:45:07",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":91,"prompt":101,"zipAvailable":102},[92,95,98],{"tool":93,"command":94},"npx","npx skills add jleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills --skill design-retro-publishability-gate",{"tool":96,"command":97},"bunx","bunx skills add jleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills --skill design-retro-publishability-gate",{"tool":99,"command":100},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add jleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills --skill design-retro-publishability-gate","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills_archive\u002F2026-08-27-historical-zero-use\u002Fdesign-retro-publishability-gate\u002FSKILL.md",true,[104],{"path":105,"resourceType":106,"resourceTypeDesc":107,"sizeBytes":108,"sourceHtmlUrl":109},"references\u002Fact2-seat.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",774,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNharu\u002Fcc-cmds\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Flint-watch-threshold-pins\u002FFAIL-4-second-mention-drift\u002Fskills\u002Fautopilot\u002Freferences\u002Fact2-seat.md",[111,127,147,161,175,191],{"skillNo":112,"name":113,"nameZh":6,"description":114,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":115,"categories":116,"keywords":117,"publishedAt":62},"01M716Y5MTJ6GYJZ2ATXCJK8G4","instinct","Use when the user invokes \u002Finstinct or \u002Fin, or asks to \"message Instinct\", \"ask Instinct\", \"tell Instinct\", \"check Instinct\", or read replies from the configured peer assistant. iMessage first, WhatsApp Web as fallback.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Finstinct\u002FSKILL.md",[],[113,118,119,120,121,46,122,123,124,47,125,126],"user","when","replies","check","identity","whatsapp","gmail","message","ask",{"skillNo":128,"name":129,"nameZh":6,"description":130,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":131,"categories":132,"keywords":136,"publishedAt":62},"01M716Y4HF7FVVMJSA2CCVN5VF","hr","Compatibility alias for history-resume; produce the same fresh-state, provenance-aware resume briefing.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fhr\u002FSKILL.md",[133],{"categoryNo":134,"categoryName":135,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000038","人力资源",[129,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146],"resume","compatibility","provenance","for","history","produce","alias","briefing","state","fresh",{"skillNo":148,"name":149,"nameZh":6,"description":150,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":151,"categories":152,"keywords":154,"publishedAt":62},"01M716Y1FFNFKFJYYKF8HQA6T8","history-resume","Resume briefing for the current repository branch or worktree using fresh state and admitted history sources.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fhistory-resume\u002FSKILL.md",[153],{"categoryNo":134,"categoryName":135,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},[141,137,155,156,118,157,144,158,140,159,160,145,146],"history resume","branch","analysis","repository","worktree","sources",{"skillNo":162,"name":163,"nameZh":6,"description":164,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":165,"categories":166,"keywords":167,"publishedAt":62},"01M716XWXJ8EPHK4RH9T14TR85","grok","Alias for the canonical grokbot browser conversation workflow; \u002Fgrok talks to the Grok bot the same way \u002Fdot talks to Dot.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fgrok\u002FSKILL.md",[],[163,168,169,170,140,171,143,172,173,174],"dot","bot","workflow","canonical","conversation","browser","grokbot",{"skillNo":176,"name":177,"nameZh":6,"description":178,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":179,"categories":180,"keywords":181,"publishedAt":62},"01M70N9Q07DTE0EW5KFXMMMSJ0","codexa-bench","Compare `codexa` and normal `codex` on a fair split of comparable work by default; use `--strict` for duplicate runs of the exact same task.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fcodexa-bench\u002FSKILL.md",[],[182,183,184,46,185,140,186,187,188,189,190],"codexa bench","work","split","default","duplicate","task","compare","normal","codex",{"skillNo":192,"name":193,"nameZh":6,"description":194,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":195,"licenseFileUrl":196,"sourceHtmlUrl":197,"categories":198,"keywords":204,"publishedAt":62},"01M6C24S2X60SP8BBFGAEKPEGW","frontend-design","Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, artifacts, posters, or applications (examples include websites, landing pages, dashboards, React components, HTML\u002FCSS layouts, or when styling\u002Fbeautifying any web UI). Generates creative, polished code and UI design that avoids generic AI aesthetics.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Ffrontend-design\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjleechanorg\u002Fjleechan-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Ffrontend-design\u002FSKILL.md",[199,202,203],{"categoryNo":200,"categoryName":201,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},[205,28,206,46,207,208,209,118,210,211,58,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,119,227],"frontend","frontend design","generic","ui design","react","html","components","artifacts","ui","aesthetics","Production","web components","landing","applications","quality","web","css","create","examples","with","react components","web ui","pages"]