[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DZ0SZCDGVSD52Y720GD1RR":3,"skill-same:01M6DZ0SZCDGVSD52Y720GD1RR":65},{"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":48,"ownerHtmlUrl":49,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":50,"install":51,"resources":64},"01M6DZ0SZCDGVSD52Y720GD1RR","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","Aceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject","Aceryoung","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F75876477?v=4","01M6DY8Q14MHFC0JX3G14KK9CW","kkong","01M6DY8Q58SY27PE2AH6GFZP9Y",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\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## 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","483e87f6ad1460beac541f70200e988102e5c385","antigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Freceiving-code-review","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject","https:\u002F\u002Ffamilyproject-iota.vercel.app","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung","2026-09-04 09:36:44",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":52,"prompt":62,"zipAvailable":63},[53,56,59],{"tool":54,"command":55},"npx","npx skills add Aceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject --skill receiving-code-review",{"tool":57,"command":58},"bunx","bunx skills add Aceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject --skill receiving-code-review",{"tool":60,"command":61},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Aceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject --skill receiving-code-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Freceiving-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[66,94,127,145,159,184],{"skillNo":67,"name":68,"nameZh":6,"description":69,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":70,"categories":71,"keywords":75,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DZ9PNJVNQ1M7196KMPEHZC","zapier-make-patterns","No-code automation democratizes workflow building. Zapier and Make (formerly Integromat) let non-developers automate business processes without writing code. But no-code doesn't mean no-complexity - these platforms have their own patterns, pitfalls, and breaking points.  This skill covers when to use which platform, how to build reliable automations, and when to graduate to code-based solutions. Key insight: Zapier optimizes for simplicity and integrations (7000+ apps), Make optimizes for power","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Fzapier-make-patterns\u002FSKILL.md",[72],{"categoryNo":73,"categoryName":74,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,37,88,89,90,91,32,92,93],"zapier make patterns","patterns","workflow","integrations","how to","apps","platform","but","build","complexity","power","simplicity","business","automate","how","apache","automation","writing",{"skillNo":95,"name":96,"nameZh":6,"description":97,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":98,"categories":99,"keywords":106,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DZ9K3385QP8QC2F3ZHZH1W","Cross-Site Scripting and HTML Injection Testing","This skill should be used when the user asks to \"test for XSS vulnerabilities\", \"perform cross-site scripting attacks\", \"identify HTML injection flaws\", \"exploit client-side injection vulnerabilities\", \"steal cookies via XSS\", or \"bypass content security policies\". It provides comprehensive techniques for detecting, exploiting, and understanding XSS and HTML injection attack vectors in web applications.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Fxss-html-injection\u002FSKILL.md",[100,103],{"categoryNo":101,"categoryName":102,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":104,"categoryName":105,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",[107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126],"html injection testing","Cross Site Scripting and HTML Injection Testing","injection","scripting","site","html","testing","vectors","exploit","applications","xss","cookies","content","web","test","steal","client","via","security","vulnerabilities",{"skillNo":128,"name":129,"nameZh":6,"description":130,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":131,"categories":132,"keywords":140,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DZ9B72D51Q21DTFD63TVEN","writing-skills","Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-skills\u002FSKILL.md",[133,134,137],{"categoryNo":101,"categoryName":102,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":135,"categoryName":136,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[93,141,142,37,143,144],"writing skills","deployment","editing","work",{"skillNo":146,"name":147,"nameZh":6,"description":148,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":149,"categories":150,"keywords":153,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DZ98HBB74FXZS78BATF6P5","writing-plans","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[151,152],{"categoryNo":135,"categoryName":136,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[154,93,155,156,157,37,32,158],"writing plans","plans","requirements","task","spec",{"skillNo":160,"name":161,"nameZh":6,"description":162,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":163,"categories":164,"keywords":166,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DZ94C3FCDXCTV795CTRP1V","workflow-automation","Workflow automation is the infrastructure that makes AI agents reliable. Without durable execution, a network hiccup during a 10-step payment flow means lost money and angry customers. With it, workflows resume exactly where they left off.  This skill covers the platforms (n8n, Temporal, Inngest) and patterns (sequential, parallel, orchestrator-worker) that turn brittle scripts into production-grade automation.  Key insight: The platforms make different tradeoffs. n8n optimizes for accessibility","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Fworkflow-automation\u002FSKILL.md",[165],{"categoryNo":73,"categoryName":74,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[167,92,78,168,169,170,91,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183],"Workflow Automation","Production","flow","network","workflows","accessibility","ai agents","execution","scripts","worker","payment","n8n","money","resume","orchestrator","parallel","inngest",{"skillNo":185,"name":186,"nameZh":6,"description":187,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":188,"categories":189,"keywords":191,"publishedAt":39},"01M6DZ90RQ8GCWE9CGPCMHMNDD","WordPress Penetration Testing","This skill should be used when the user asks to \"pentest WordPress sites\", \"scan WordPress for vulnerabilities\", \"enumerate WordPress users, themes, or plugins\", \"exploit WordPress vulnerabilities\", or \"use WPScan\". It provides comprehensive WordPress security assessment methodologies.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FAceryoung\u002Ffamilyproject\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fantigravity-awesome-skills-main\u002Fskills\u002Fwordpress-penetration-testing\u002FSKILL.md",[190],{"categoryNo":101,"categoryName":102,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[113,186,192,193,194,195,196,197,115,37,198,199,200,126,125],"penetration testing","wordpress","security assessment","sites","scan","pentest","user","plugins","assessment"]