[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6JBTAZWNMC08KPABH4633T2":3,"skill-same:01M6JBTAZWNMC08KPABH4633T2":93},{"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":36,"publishedAt":57,"linkOnly":58,"markdownContent":59,"markdownBody":60,"frontMatter":61,"refName":71,"commitSha":72,"skillDirectory":73,"forksCount":74,"repositoryHtmlUrl":75,"repositoryHomepageUrl":76,"ownerHtmlUrl":77,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":78,"install":79,"resources":92},"01M6JBTAZWNMC08KPABH4633T2","subagent-driven-development",null,"Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks. Dispatches fresh delegate_task per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality).","S3YED\u002Fappie-kit","S3YED","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F62743867?v=4","01M6JBKBRRVP6KMS0VWZ27T3R6","01M6JBKBX0KG30284PW1DBYJT1",14,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fautomation\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[17,22,25,30,33],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":26,"categoryName":27,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":31,"categoryName":32,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",{"categoryNo":34,"categoryName":35,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",[37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56],"driven","development","subagent driven development","subagent","test-driven-development","writing","fresh","plans","stage","superpowers","use","delegate","parallel","code-review","delegation","code","tasks","code quality","workflow","review","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: subagent-driven-development\ndescription: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks. Dispatches fresh delegate_task per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality).\nversion: 1.1.0\nauthor: Hermes Agent (adapted from obra\u002Fsuperpowers)\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  hermes:\n    tags: [delegation, subagent, implementation, workflow, parallel]\n    related_skills: [writing-plans, requesting-code-review, test-driven-development]\n---\n\n# Subagent-Driven Development\n\n## Overview\n\nExecute implementation plans by dispatching fresh subagents per task with systematic two-stage review.\n\n**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse this skill when:\n- You have an implementation plan (from writing-plans skill or user requirements)\n- Tasks are mostly independent\n- Quality and spec compliance are important\n- You want automated review between tasks\n\n**vs. manual execution:**\n- Fresh context per task (no confusion from accumulated state)\n- Automated review process catches issues early\n- Consistent quality checks across all tasks\n- Subagents can ask questions before starting work\n\n## The Process\n\n### 1. Read and Parse Plan\n\nRead the plan file. Extract ALL tasks with their full text and context upfront. Create a todo list:\n\n```python\n# Read the plan\nread_file(\"docs\u002Fplans\u002Ffeature-plan.md\")\n\n# Create todo list with all tasks\ntodo([\n    {\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-2\", \"content\": \"Add password hashing utility\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-3\", \"content\": \"Create login endpoint\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n])\n```\n\n**Key:** Read the plan ONCE. Extract everything. Don't make subagents read the plan file — provide the full task text directly in context.\n\n### 2. Per-Task Workflow\n\nFor EACH task in the plan:\n\n#### Step 1: Dispatch Implementer Subagent\n\nUse `delegate_task` with complete context:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Implement Task 1: Create User model with email and password_hash fields\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    TASK FROM PLAN:\n    - Create: src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - Add User class with email (str) and password_hash (str) fields\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__ for debugging\n\n    FOLLOW TDD:\n    1. Write failing test in tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n    2. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify FAIL)\n    3. Write minimal implementation\n    4. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify PASS)\n    5. Run: pytest tests\u002F -q (verify no regressions)\n    6. Commit: git add -A && git commit -m \"feat: add User model with password hashing\"\n\n    PROJECT CONTEXT:\n    - Python 3.11, Flask app in src\u002Fapp.py\n    - Existing models in src\u002Fmodels\u002F\n    - Tests use pytest, run from project root\n    - bcrypt already in requirements.txt\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n#### Step 2: Dispatch Spec Compliance Reviewer\n\nAfter the implementer completes, verify against the original spec:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review if implementation matches the spec from the plan\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    ORIGINAL TASK SPEC:\n    - Create src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py with User class\n    - Fields: email (str), password_hash (str)\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] All requirements from spec implemented?\n    - [ ] File paths match spec?\n    - [ ] Function signatures match spec?\n    - [ ] Behavior matches expected?\n    - [ ] Nothing extra added (no scope creep)?\n\n    OUTPUT: PASS or list of specific spec gaps to fix.\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If spec issues found:** Fix gaps, then re-run spec review. Continue only when spec-compliant.\n\n#### Step 3: Dispatch Code Quality Reviewer\n\nAfter spec compliance passes:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review code quality for Task 1 implementation\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    FILES TO REVIEW:\n    - src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] Follows project conventions and style?\n    - [ ] Proper error handling?\n    - [ ] Clear variable\u002Ffunction names?\n    - [ ] Adequate test coverage?\n    - [ ] No obvious bugs or missed edge cases?\n    - [ ] No security issues?\n\n    OUTPUT FORMAT:\n    - Critical Issues: [must fix before proceeding]\n    - Important Issues: [should fix]\n    - Minor Issues: [optional]\n    - Verdict: APPROVED or REQUEST_CHANGES\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If quality issues found:** Fix issues, re-review. Continue only when approved.\n\n#### Step 4: Mark Complete\n\n```python\ntodo([{\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"completed\"}], merge=True)\n```\n\n### 3. Final Review\n\nAfter ALL tasks are complete, dispatch a final integration reviewer:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review the entire implementation for consistency and integration issues\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    All tasks from the plan are complete. Review the full implementation:\n    - Do all components work together?\n    - Any inconsistencies between tasks?\n    - All tests passing?\n    - Ready for merge?\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n### 4. Verify and Commit\n\n```bash\n# Run full test suite\npytest tests\u002F -q\n\n# Review all changes\ngit diff --stat\n\n# Final commit if needed\ngit add -A && git commit -m \"feat: complete [feature name] implementation\"\n```\n\n## Task Granularity\n\n**Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.**\n\n**Too big:**\n- \"Implement user authentication system\"\n\n**Right size:**\n- \"Create User model with email and password fields\"\n- \"Add password hashing function\"\n- \"Create login endpoint\"\n- \"Add JWT token generation\"\n- \"Create registration endpoint\"\n\n## Red Flags — Never Do These\n\n- Start implementation without a plan\n- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)\n- Proceed with unfixed critical\u002Fimportant issues\n- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents for tasks that touch the same files\n- Make subagent read the plan file (provide full text in context instead)\n- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where the task fits)\n- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)\n- Accept \"close enough\" on spec compliance\n- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues → implementer fixes → review again)\n- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)\n- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is PASS** (wrong order)\n- Move to next task while either review has open issues\n\n## Handling Issues\n\n### If Subagent Asks Questions\n\n- Answer clearly and completely\n- Provide additional context if needed\n- Don't rush them into implementation\n\n### If Reviewer Finds Issues\n\n- Implementer subagent (or a new one) fixes them\n- Reviewer reviews again\n- Repeat until approved\n- Don't skip the re-review\n\n### If Subagent Fails a Task\n\n- Dispatch a new fix subagent with specific instructions about what went wrong\n- Don't try to fix manually in the controller session (context pollution)\n\n## Efficiency Notes\n\n**Why fresh subagent per task:**\n- Prevents context pollution from accumulated state\n- Each subagent gets clean, focused context\n- No confusion from prior tasks' code or reasoning\n\n**Why two-stage review:**\n- Spec review catches under\u002Fover-building early\n- Quality review ensures the implementation is well-built\n- Catches issues before they compound across tasks\n\n**Cost trade-off:**\n- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)\n- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging compounded problems later)\n\n## Integration with Other Skills\n\n### With writing-plans\n\nThis skill EXECUTES plans created by the writing-plans skill:\n1. User requirements → writing-plans → implementation plan\n2. Implementation plan → subagent-driven-development → working code\n\n### With test-driven-development\n\nImplementer subagents should follow TDD:\n1. Write failing test first\n2. Implement minimal code\n3. Verify test passes\n4. Commit\n\nInclude TDD instructions in every implementer context.\n\n### With requesting-code-review\n\nThe two-stage review process IS the code review. For final integration review, use the requesting-code-review skill's review dimensions.\n\n### With systematic-debugging\n\nIf a subagent encounters bugs during implementation:\n1. Follow systematic-debugging process\n2. Find root cause before fixing\n3. Write regression test\n4. Resume implementation\n\n## Example Workflow\n\n```\n[Read plan: docs\u002Fplans\u002Fauth-feature.md]\n[Create todo list with 5 tasks]\n\n--- Task 1: Create User model ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: \"Should email be unique?\"\n  You: \"Yes, email must be unique\"\n  Implementer: Implemented, 3\u002F3 tests passing, committed.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS — all requirements met\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED — clean code, good tests\n\n[Mark Task 1 complete]\n\n--- Task 2: Password hashing ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: No questions, implemented, 5\u002F5 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ❌ Missing: password strength validation (spec says \"min 8 chars\")\n\n[Implementer fixes]\n  Implementer: Added validation, 7\u002F7 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer again]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: Important: Magic number 8, extract to constant\n  Implementer: Extracted MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH constant\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED\n\n[Mark Task 2 complete]\n\n... (continue for all tasks)\n\n[After all tasks: dispatch final integration reviewer]\n[Run full test suite: all passing]\n[Done!]\n```\n\n## Remember\n\n```\nFresh subagent per task\nTwo-stage review every time\nSpec compliance FIRST\nCode quality SECOND\nNever skip reviews\nCatch issues early\n```\n\n**Quality is not an accident. It's the result of systematic process.**\n","# Subagent-Driven Development\n\n## Overview\n\nExecute implementation plans by dispatching fresh subagents per task with systematic two-stage review.\n\n**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse this skill when:\n- You have an implementation plan (from writing-plans skill or user requirements)\n- Tasks are mostly independent\n- Quality and spec compliance are important\n- You want automated review between tasks\n\n**vs. manual execution:**\n- Fresh context per task (no confusion from accumulated state)\n- Automated review process catches issues early\n- Consistent quality checks across all tasks\n- Subagents can ask questions before starting work\n\n## The Process\n\n### 1. Read and Parse Plan\n\nRead the plan file. Extract ALL tasks with their full text and context upfront. Create a todo list:\n\n```python\n# Read the plan\nread_file(\"docs\u002Fplans\u002Ffeature-plan.md\")\n\n# Create todo list with all tasks\ntodo([\n    {\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-2\", \"content\": \"Add password hashing utility\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-3\", \"content\": \"Create login endpoint\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n])\n```\n\n**Key:** Read the plan ONCE. Extract everything. Don't make subagents read the plan file — provide the full task text directly in context.\n\n### 2. Per-Task Workflow\n\nFor EACH task in the plan:\n\n#### Step 1: Dispatch Implementer Subagent\n\nUse `delegate_task` with complete context:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Implement Task 1: Create User model with email and password_hash fields\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    TASK FROM PLAN:\n    - Create: src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - Add User class with email (str) and password_hash (str) fields\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__ for debugging\n\n    FOLLOW TDD:\n    1. Write failing test in tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n    2. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify FAIL)\n    3. Write minimal implementation\n    4. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify PASS)\n    5. Run: pytest tests\u002F -q (verify no regressions)\n    6. Commit: git add -A && git commit -m \"feat: add User model with password hashing\"\n\n    PROJECT CONTEXT:\n    - Python 3.11, Flask app in src\u002Fapp.py\n    - Existing models in src\u002Fmodels\u002F\n    - Tests use pytest, run from project root\n    - bcrypt already in requirements.txt\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n#### Step 2: Dispatch Spec Compliance Reviewer\n\nAfter the implementer completes, verify against the original spec:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review if implementation matches the spec from the plan\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    ORIGINAL TASK SPEC:\n    - Create src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py with User class\n    - Fields: email (str), password_hash (str)\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] All requirements from spec implemented?\n    - [ ] File paths match spec?\n    - [ ] Function signatures match spec?\n    - [ ] Behavior matches expected?\n    - [ ] Nothing extra added (no scope creep)?\n\n    OUTPUT: PASS or list of specific spec gaps to fix.\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If spec issues found:** Fix gaps, then re-run spec review. Continue only when spec-compliant.\n\n#### Step 3: Dispatch Code Quality Reviewer\n\nAfter spec compliance passes:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review code quality for Task 1 implementation\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    FILES TO REVIEW:\n    - src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] Follows project conventions and style?\n    - [ ] Proper error handling?\n    - [ ] Clear variable\u002Ffunction names?\n    - [ ] Adequate test coverage?\n    - [ ] No obvious bugs or missed edge cases?\n    - [ ] No security issues?\n\n    OUTPUT FORMAT:\n    - Critical Issues: [must fix before proceeding]\n    - Important Issues: [should fix]\n    - Minor Issues: [optional]\n    - Verdict: APPROVED or REQUEST_CHANGES\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If quality issues found:** Fix issues, re-review. Continue only when approved.\n\n#### Step 4: Mark Complete\n\n```python\ntodo([{\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"completed\"}], merge=True)\n```\n\n### 3. Final Review\n\nAfter ALL tasks are complete, dispatch a final integration reviewer:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review the entire implementation for consistency and integration issues\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    All tasks from the plan are complete. Review the full implementation:\n    - Do all components work together?\n    - Any inconsistencies between tasks?\n    - All tests passing?\n    - Ready for merge?\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n### 4. Verify and Commit\n\n```bash\n# Run full test suite\npytest tests\u002F -q\n\n# Review all changes\ngit diff --stat\n\n# Final commit if needed\ngit add -A && git commit -m \"feat: complete [feature name] implementation\"\n```\n\n## Task Granularity\n\n**Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.**\n\n**Too big:**\n- \"Implement user authentication system\"\n\n**Right size:**\n- \"Create User model with email and password fields\"\n- \"Add password hashing function\"\n- \"Create login endpoint\"\n- \"Add JWT token generation\"\n- \"Create registration endpoint\"\n\n## Red Flags — Never Do These\n\n- Start implementation without a plan\n- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)\n- Proceed with unfixed critical\u002Fimportant issues\n- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents for tasks that touch the same files\n- Make subagent read the plan file (provide full text in context instead)\n- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where the task fits)\n- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)\n- Accept \"close enough\" on spec compliance\n- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues → implementer fixes → review again)\n- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)\n- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is PASS** (wrong order)\n- Move to next task while either review has open issues\n\n## Handling Issues\n\n### If Subagent Asks Questions\n\n- Answer clearly and completely\n- Provide additional context if needed\n- Don't rush them into implementation\n\n### If Reviewer Finds Issues\n\n- Implementer subagent (or a new one) fixes them\n- Reviewer reviews again\n- Repeat until approved\n- Don't skip the re-review\n\n### If Subagent Fails a Task\n\n- Dispatch a new fix subagent with specific instructions about what went wrong\n- Don't try to fix manually in the controller session (context pollution)\n\n## Efficiency Notes\n\n**Why fresh subagent per task:**\n- Prevents context pollution from accumulated state\n- Each subagent gets clean, focused context\n- No confusion from prior tasks' code or reasoning\n\n**Why two-stage review:**\n- Spec review catches under\u002Fover-building early\n- Quality review ensures the implementation is well-built\n- Catches issues before they compound across tasks\n\n**Cost trade-off:**\n- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)\n- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging compounded problems later)\n\n## Integration with Other Skills\n\n### With writing-plans\n\nThis skill EXECUTES plans created by the writing-plans skill:\n1. User requirements → writing-plans → implementation plan\n2. Implementation plan → subagent-driven-development → working code\n\n### With test-driven-development\n\nImplementer subagents should follow TDD:\n1. Write failing test first\n2. Implement minimal code\n3. Verify test passes\n4. Commit\n\nInclude TDD instructions in every implementer context.\n\n### With requesting-code-review\n\nThe two-stage review process IS the code review. For final integration review, use the requesting-code-review skill's review dimensions.\n\n### With systematic-debugging\n\nIf a subagent encounters bugs during implementation:\n1. Follow systematic-debugging process\n2. Find root cause before fixing\n3. Write regression test\n4. Resume implementation\n\n## Example Workflow\n\n```\n[Read plan: docs\u002Fplans\u002Fauth-feature.md]\n[Create todo list with 5 tasks]\n\n--- Task 1: Create User model ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: \"Should email be unique?\"\n  You: \"Yes, email must be unique\"\n  Implementer: Implemented, 3\u002F3 tests passing, committed.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS — all requirements met\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED — clean code, good tests\n\n[Mark Task 1 complete]\n\n--- Task 2: Password hashing ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: No questions, implemented, 5\u002F5 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ❌ Missing: password strength validation (spec says \"min 8 chars\")\n\n[Implementer fixes]\n  Implementer: Added validation, 7\u002F7 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer again]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: Important: Magic number 8, extract to constant\n  Implementer: Extracted MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH constant\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED\n\n[Mark Task 2 complete]\n\n... (continue for all tasks)\n\n[After all tasks: dispatch final integration reviewer]\n[Run full test suite: all passing]\n[Done!]\n```\n\n## Remember\n\n```\nFresh subagent per task\nTwo-stage review every time\nSpec compliance FIRST\nCode quality SECOND\nNever skip reviews\nCatch issues early\n```\n\n**Quality is not an accident. It's the result of systematic process.**\n",{"name":5,"author":62,"license":14,"version":63,"metadata":64,"description":7},"Hermes Agent (adapted from obra\u002Fsuperpowers)","1.1.0",{"hermes":65},{"tags":66,"related_skills":68},[51,40,67,55,49],"implementation",[69,70,41],"writing-plans","requesting-code-review","master","8ec37df6d71fb664ea19d32c079e7d3ff931a8e0","skills\u002Fautomation\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development",3,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit","https:\u002F\u002Fweblyfe.ai","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED","2026-08-27 01:54:02",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":80,"prompt":90,"zipAvailable":91},[81,84,87],{"tool":82,"command":83},"npx","npx skills add S3YED\u002Fappie-kit --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":85,"command":86},"bunx","bunx skills add S3YED\u002Fappie-kit --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":88,"command":89},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add S3YED\u002Fappie-kit --skill subagent-driven-development","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fautomation\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[94,126,159,184,215,237],{"skillNo":95,"name":96,"nameZh":6,"description":97,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":98,"categories":99,"keywords":107,"publishedAt":57},"01M6JFD4M6N4DSGC7TXEJ5R3J2","ai-music","AI music generation and audio tools: HeartMuLa lyrics-to-music generation, songwriting craft (+ Suno prompts), and audio spectrogram\u002Ffeature visualization.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fwethlete\u002Fai-music\u002FSKILL.md",[100,103,106],{"categoryNo":101,"categoryName":102,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000013","分析与可视化",{"categoryNo":104,"categoryName":105,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000016","图像与多媒体",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125],"music","ai music","humanizer","visualization","Tools","Audio","hermes","hermes agent","songwriting","suno","lyrics","prompts","heartmula","craft","generation","feature","ai music generation","music generation",{"skillNo":127,"name":128,"nameZh":6,"description":129,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":130,"categories":131,"keywords":138,"publishedAt":57},"01M6JFCZE4XNFQFMNZDHKHT5V5","agentic-webdesign-design-system-ingestion","Use v0 Design Systems 2.0, Bolt Design System Agents, or Lovable to generate production UI from a client's real design system components — not generic Tailwind. Use when building a client website where brand consistency matters.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fweb-design\u002Fagentic-webdesign-design-system-ingestion\u002FSKILL.md",[132,135],{"categoryNo":133,"categoryName":134,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计",{"categoryNo":136,"categoryName":137,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000032","设计师",[139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158],"design","agentic","design system","system","ingestion","webdesign","agentic webdesign design system ingestion","components","generate","design systems","website","ui","Tailwind","bolt","lovable","v0","design-system","wed","design system components","appie",{"skillNo":160,"name":161,"nameZh":6,"description":162,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":163,"categories":164,"keywords":167,"publishedAt":57},"01M6JFCVPX3913CFAS6QQJ33ZB","agentic-webdesign-agent-elements","Use 21st.dev Agent Elements — 25 shadcn\u002Fui components purpose-built for AI agent UIs. Tool cards (Bash, Edit, Search, Plan, Subagent, MCP), chat, input, streaming. Open source, shadcn-registry install, no runtime lock-in.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fweb-design\u002Fagentic-webdesign-agent-elements\u002FSKILL.md",[165,166],{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":136,"categoryName":137,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[140,168,144,169,170,171,146,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,40,179,180,181,182,183],"elements","agentic webdesign agent elements","MCP","ai agent","registry","search","streaming","open source","open","Bash","plan","edit","install","input","lock","source",{"skillNo":185,"name":186,"nameZh":6,"description":187,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":188,"categories":189,"keywords":194,"publishedAt":57},"01M6JFCQC7H65M9QJ6TRE71BS1","vercel-deployment","Deploy static sites and frontends to Vercel — handles both CLI and REST API paths, including the CLI token sanitization workaround.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fvercel-deployment\u002FSKILL.md",[190,193],{"categoryNo":191,"categoryName":192,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000011","运维与部署",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214],"deployment","vercel deployment","vercel","macos","cli","linux","windows","deploy","vercel deploy","REST","api","site","deploy to vercel","token","rest api","host","sites","paths","sanitization","static site",{"skillNo":216,"name":217,"nameZh":6,"description":218,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":219,"categories":220,"keywords":222,"publishedAt":57},"01M6JFCM4SMTXBM5A01BK2YQG1","software-quality-workflows","Umbrella workflow for TDD, debugging, code simplification, spikes, pre-commit review, and debugger-assisted investigation.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsoftware-quality-workflows\u002FSKILL.md",[221],{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[223,224,225,226,56,227,55,228,229,52,230,231,232,233,234,235,236],"workflows","quality","software","software quality workflows","tdd","commit","debugging","debugger","pre-commit","investigation","code simplification","user","simplification","for",{"skillNo":238,"name":239,"nameZh":6,"description":240,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":241,"categories":242,"keywords":250,"publishedAt":57},"01M6JFCGD0M6CEATY01W7YN6DB","react-component-refactoring","Safely refactor large React components into smaller, maintainable pieces using proven patterns","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FS3YED\u002Fappie-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Freact-component-refactoring\u002FSKILL.md",[243,246,249],{"categoryNo":244,"categoryName":245,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":247,"categoryName":248,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[251,252,253,254,255,256,257,42,198,258,259,146,260,201,261,52,262,263,264,41],"react","component","refactoring","component refactoring","react component","react component refactoring","frontend","safe","typescript","react components","modular","refactor","simplify","patterns"]