[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DEPB7WGX1XT66FG1XDEV3D":3,"skill-same:01M6DEPB7WGX1XT66FG1XDEV3D":70},{"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":39,"linkOnly":40,"markdownContent":41,"markdownBody":42,"frontMatter":43,"refName":44,"commitSha":45,"skillDirectory":46,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":47,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":48,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":49,"install":50,"resources":63},"01M6DEPB7WGX1XT66FG1XDEV3D","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","Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","Prekzursil","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F54636077?v=4","01M6DACZ1PCQHD99SCR1YXG28B","Andrei Mihai Visalon","01M6DACZ670WZF535V3WYYSS4Z",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\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],"code review","review","receiving code review","code","verification","feedback","technical","code review feedback","use","implementation","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## When a Finding Is an Overclaim\n\nA third case sits between \"the reviewer is wrong\" and \"the code is wrong\": the reviewer is right, the code is fine, and the defect is in your **sentence**.\n\nMeasured across three lanes and four adversarial reviews: **5 of 8 refuted claims were overclaims, not broken fixes** — the implementation was correct and the claim was wider than the evidence. Only 3 of 8 were genuine defects, and each closed in a single round. So when a finding refutes something you *claimed* rather than something you *built*, check the sentence before you touch the code.\n\n```\nIF a finding refutes a CLAIM (not an implementation):\n  1. Re-read your own sentence beside the evidence you actually have\n  2. IF the code is right and only the sentence over-reaches:\n       Fix the SENTENCE. Do NOT change working code to match an overclaim.\n```\n\n**Fixing the sentence means all three:**\n\n| Step | Overclaim | Scoped |\n|------|-----------|--------|\n| State the scope actually measured | \"recall = 1.0\" | \"recall = 1.0 on the 12-case fixture set\" |\n| Disclose the residual INLINE | \"three holes closed\" | \"two closed; the third is scoped below\" |\n| Name the settling experiment | (none) | \"settled by re-running X against Y\" |\n\nInline means adjacent to the claim. A limitations section at the end does not satisfy this — if a recommendation rests on an unverified premise, the tag belongs in the recommendation's own heading.\n\n**A correctly-scoped claim is CONFIRMED.** A residual gap that is honestly scoped and disclosed is **not** a refuted item and must **not** block.\n\n**Record that the earlier wording was REFUTED — do not silently delete it.** Deleting the wrong sentence erases the dead-end and the next reader re-walks it. Keep it, mark it REFUTED, and put the scoped version beside it.\n\n**If you are the reviewer:** an overclaim is a REFUTED verdict **even when the underlying code is fine**. Say so explicitly, and hand back the correctly-scoped wording rather than a request to change code that is already correct.\n\n**Why this makes review terminate:** it turns \"round N until fully green\" from unbounded into tractable. Convergence comes from scoping claims to their evidence, not from closing every conceivable gap.\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## When a Finding Is an Overclaim\n\nA third case sits between \"the reviewer is wrong\" and \"the code is wrong\": the reviewer is right, the code is fine, and the defect is in your **sentence**.\n\nMeasured across three lanes and four adversarial reviews: **5 of 8 refuted claims were overclaims, not broken fixes** — the implementation was correct and the claim was wider than the evidence. Only 3 of 8 were genuine defects, and each closed in a single round. So when a finding refutes something you *claimed* rather than something you *built*, check the sentence before you touch the code.\n\n```\nIF a finding refutes a CLAIM (not an implementation):\n  1. Re-read your own sentence beside the evidence you actually have\n  2. IF the code is right and only the sentence over-reaches:\n       Fix the SENTENCE. Do NOT change working code to match an overclaim.\n```\n\n**Fixing the sentence means all three:**\n\n| Step | Overclaim | Scoped |\n|------|-----------|--------|\n| State the scope actually measured | \"recall = 1.0\" | \"recall = 1.0 on the 12-case fixture set\" |\n| Disclose the residual INLINE | \"three holes closed\" | \"two closed; the third is scoped below\" |\n| Name the settling experiment | (none) | \"settled by re-running X against Y\" |\n\nInline means adjacent to the claim. A limitations section at the end does not satisfy this — if a recommendation rests on an unverified premise, the tag belongs in the recommendation's own heading.\n\n**A correctly-scoped claim is CONFIRMED.** A residual gap that is honestly scoped and disclosed is **not** a refuted item and must **not** block.\n\n**Record that the earlier wording was REFUTED — do not silently delete it.** Deleting the wrong sentence erases the dead-end and the next reader re-walks it. Keep it, mark it REFUTED, and put the scoped version beside it.\n\n**If you are the reviewer:** an overclaim is a REFUTED verdict **even when the underlying code is fine**. Say so explicitly, and hand back the correctly-scoped wording rather than a request to change code that is already correct.\n\n**Why this makes review terminate:** it turns \"round N until fully green\" from unbounded into tractable. Convergence comes from scoping claims to their evidence, not from closing every conceivable gap.\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","a298c929b6cbd662e1fce54302ce520d5ceea1a5","skills\u002Freceiving-code-review","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil","2026-11-02 14:30:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":51,"prompt":61,"zipAvailable":62},[52,55,58],{"tool":53,"command":54},"npx","npx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill receiving-code-review",{"tool":56,"command":57},"bunx","bunx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill receiving-code-review",{"tool":59,"command":60},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill receiving-code-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Freceiving-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[64],{"path":65,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":68,"sourceHtmlUrl":69},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",176,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Freceiving-code-review\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",[71,92,121,147,161,177],{"skillNo":72,"name":73,"nameZh":6,"description":74,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":75,"categories":76,"keywords":77,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DF7D7478R55P46REYH4QAC","clarify-requirements","Resolve genuine pre-execution ambiguity by scanning repo context, generating 1-6 grounded options, and asking 1-3 focused questions via AskUserQuestion. NOT for mid-task use (injection risk); NOT when the goal is already unambiguous; use to disambiguate vague prompts before any file edits.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fworkspace-hooks\u002Fskills\u002Fclarify-requirements\u002FSKILL.md",[],[78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,37,87,88,89,90,91],"clarify requirements","clarify","requirements","risk","options","task","prompts","goal","scanning","context","repo","injection","execution","file",{"skillNo":93,"name":94,"nameZh":6,"description":95,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":96,"categories":97,"keywords":101,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DF79CA4BHJS66J8EZDBPWJ","openmm-md","Run FREE, open-source, Windows-native GPU molecular dynamics via the openmm-md MCP (OpenMM + CUDA on the local NVIDIA GPU). Use for protein \u002F protein-ligand MD when you want a free stack or are on Windows without a Schrodinger license. Covers the full workflow (prepare, solvate, minimize, equilibrate, production, analyze, mmgbsa) AND an honest decision guide vs Schrodinger Desmond, including how to run Desmond legitimately on Linux or a cloud GPU with a real license. This is a deliberately LESSER free alternative and does NOT replace the schrodinger MCP tools. Do NOT use it to pick a free tool when a validated FEP+, WaterMap, IFD-MD, or Prime MM-GBSA result is actually required.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fmcp\u002Fopenmm-md-mcp\u002Fskill\u002Fopenmm-md\u002FSKILL.md",[98],{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,37,116,117,118,119,120],"openmm md","how","decision","pick","linux","analyze","tool","stack","open","NVIDIA","gpu","license","workflow","windows","free","molecular dynamics","local","do","MCP",{"skillNo":122,"name":123,"nameZh":6,"description":124,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":125,"categories":126,"keywords":133,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DF76C1MG85VEWP8VZCBNMN","visual-review","Take screenshots of web pages and UI using Playwright for visual review and iteration","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fvisual-review\u002FSKILL.md",[127,130],{"categoryNo":128,"categoryName":129,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000003","演示文稿",{"categoryNo":131,"categoryName":132,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",[30,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,103,143,144,145,146],"visual","visual review","pages","web","false","iteration","take","check","slides","ui","screenshot","playwright","screenshots",{"skillNo":148,"name":149,"nameZh":6,"description":150,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":151,"categories":152,"keywords":153,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DF73AQVCBZKEN0YXEX9FXP","status","Diagnostic status report — shows metaswarm installation state, project setup, and potential issues","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstatus\u002FSKILL.md",[],[149,154,155,156,157,158,159,160],"setup","report","project","installation","project setup","issues","state",{"skillNo":162,"name":163,"nameZh":6,"description":164,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":165,"categories":166,"keywords":168,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DF6X6C2XB0P6GX76P7TTYV","start","Use when starting work on any task, when the user mentions metaswarm, or when the user wants to begin tracked development work","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstart\u002FSKILL.md",[167],{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[163,169,83,170,171,172,37,173,174,175,176],"start issue","issue","ready","work on issue","user","work","work on","development",{"skillNo":178,"name":154,"nameZh":6,"description":179,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":180,"categories":181,"keywords":182,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DF6QMJ9AJKFKHHKRT005PQ","Interactive project setup — detects your project, configures metaswarm, writes project-local files","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fsetup\u002FSKILL.md",[],[154,156,118,183,158,184],"files","interactive"]