[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6NHH7ECV2QESBAS0ZXPAFXX":3,"skill-same:01M6NHH7ECV2QESBAS0ZXPAFXX":63},{"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":17,"publishedAt":38,"linkOnly":39,"markdownContent":40,"markdownBody":41,"frontMatter":42,"refName":43,"commitSha":44,"skillDirectory":45,"forksCount":13,"repositoryHtmlUrl":46,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":47,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":48,"install":49,"resources":62},"01M6NHH7ECV2QESBAS0ZXPAFXX","benchmark-methodology",null,"Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set. Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1–5 rubrics and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure.","JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing","JiayiV","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F54466889?v=4","01M6JFJYYMRZ3QRGP9339JNQ2K","01M6JFJZ35KB0QVT50NAHPJA7G",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-07-ecc-main-skills-benchmark-methodology-skill-86aa8dac\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"benchmark","benchmark methodology","methodology","positioning","pricing","with","strategic","competitive","platform","leadership","across","visual","Enterprise","structure","dimensions","evidence","use","packaging","analysis","SET","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: benchmark-methodology\ndescription: >-\n  Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set.\n  Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice,\n  visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought\n  leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1–5 rubrics\n  and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure.\nlicense: MIT\n---\n\n# Benchmark Methodology\n\nUse this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible\nscores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with\nexplicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is\nthe point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same\nnumber for any competitor.\n\n## When to Activate\n\n- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.\n- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.\n- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.\n- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.\n\n## Client positioning brief (establish first)\n\nBefore scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:\n\n- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose\n  intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always\n  the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.\n- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which\n  dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.\n- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic\n  recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.\n\n## Why these dimensions\n\nThe client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on\nservice breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two\ndimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged\ntogether**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival\nachieves both simultaneously.\n\n## The nine dimensions (with weights)\n\nWeights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false\ncomposite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.\n\n1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position\n   sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?\n2. **Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an\n   ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?\n3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual\n   system; site as proof-of-craft.\n4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named\n   sprints\u002Faudits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.\n5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,\n   case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.\n6. **Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land\n   and hold SaaS\u002Ffintech\u002FB2B\u002Fenterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).\n7. **Thought leadership \u002F content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,\n   newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.\n8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing\u002Fengagement\n   legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.\n9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,\n   report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the\n   client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's\n   target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already\n   there?\n\n## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)\n\nAnchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the\nspecifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.\n\n- **1 — Absent \u002F generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable\n  from a template. Active liability.\n- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.\n  Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.\n- **3 — Competent \u002F table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets\n  expectation, ownable by nobody.\n- **4 — Strong \u002F distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer\n  would notice and cite.\n- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the\n  bar others react to.\n\n### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5\n\nRead the axis labels and their 1\u002F3\u002F5 anchors from the client's positioning\nbrief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:\n\n- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·\n  5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.\n- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky\u002Famateur · 3: safe, competent,\n  unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.\n\nPlot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in\nthe positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most\nimportant finding of the benchmark.\n\n## How to collect the data\n\nFor each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):\n\n1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing\n   posture, named clients, manifesto\u002FPOV. Screenshot the homepage + one case\n   study.\n2. **Case studies \u002F work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.\n   Distinguish *asserted* (\"we delivered X\") from *proven* (metrics, named,\n   verifiable).\n3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model\n   → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).\n4. **LinkedIn** — team size\u002Fmodel, founder narrative, content cadence →\n   thought leadership, model.\n5. **Portfolio \u002F craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to\n   the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).\n6. **Content channels** — newsletter\u002Ftalks\u002Fwriting → thought-leadership depth.\n\n**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the\nsource link\u002Fscreenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.\n\n## Bias controls\n\n- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot\n  separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.\n- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility\u002Fevidence scores for\n  self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.\n- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic\n  they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and\n  credibility independently; a \"boring\" site may be winning bigger clients.\n- **Recency \u002F flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may\n  lack commercial depth — verify with directories\u002Fclients before scoring\n  credibility.\n- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;\n  note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories\u002Freviews.\n- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read\n  scores side-by-side — a \"4\" must mean the same thing for every competitor.\n  Adjust outliers.\n\n## Competitor profile card (output format)\n\nProduce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles\nfrom:\n\n```\n## \u003CCompetitor name>\n- **Profile \u002F Tier:** \u003Cpositioning stance · specialization · size band> \u002F \u003CDirect | Adjacent | Aspirational>\n- **One-liner:** \u003Chow they position themselves, in their words>\n- **Model \u002F size \u002F geography:** \u003Csolo|micro|boutique> · \u003Cregion> · \u003Cpricing\u002Fengagement model>\n- **Notable clients \u002F evidence:** \u003Cnamed, with proven\u002Fasserted tag>\n\n### Dimension scores\n| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |\n| Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness | | | |\n| Visual identity & site craft | | | |\n| Service offer & packaging | | | |\n| Evidence & credibility | | | |\n| Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity | | | |\n| Thought leadership \u002F content presence | | | |\n| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |\n\n### Tension plot\n- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **Quadrant:** \u003Chigh\u002Fhigh | high-1\u002Flow-2 | low-1\u002Fhigh-2 | low\u002Flow>\n\n### Read for [client]\n- **Strength to learn from:** \u003C…>\n- **Weakness to exploit \u002F white-space it exposes:** \u003C…>\n- **Threat to [client]:** \u003C…>\n```\n\nHand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.\n- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.\n- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.\n- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.\n- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.\n- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.\n","# Benchmark Methodology\n\nUse this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible\nscores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with\nexplicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is\nthe point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same\nnumber for any competitor.\n\n## When to Activate\n\n- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.\n- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.\n- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.\n- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.\n\n## Client positioning brief (establish first)\n\nBefore scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:\n\n- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose\n  intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always\n  the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.\n- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which\n  dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.\n- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic\n  recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.\n\n## Why these dimensions\n\nThe client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on\nservice breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two\ndimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged\ntogether**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival\nachieves both simultaneously.\n\n## The nine dimensions (with weights)\n\nWeights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false\ncomposite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.\n\n1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position\n   sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?\n2. **Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an\n   ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?\n3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual\n   system; site as proof-of-craft.\n4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named\n   sprints\u002Faudits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.\n5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,\n   case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.\n6. **Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land\n   and hold SaaS\u002Ffintech\u002FB2B\u002Fenterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).\n7. **Thought leadership \u002F content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,\n   newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.\n8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing\u002Fengagement\n   legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.\n9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,\n   report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the\n   client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's\n   target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already\n   there?\n\n## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)\n\nAnchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the\nspecifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.\n\n- **1 — Absent \u002F generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable\n  from a template. Active liability.\n- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.\n  Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.\n- **3 — Competent \u002F table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets\n  expectation, ownable by nobody.\n- **4 — Strong \u002F distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer\n  would notice and cite.\n- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the\n  bar others react to.\n\n### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5\n\nRead the axis labels and their 1\u002F3\u002F5 anchors from the client's positioning\nbrief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:\n\n- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·\n  5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.\n- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky\u002Famateur · 3: safe, competent,\n  unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.\n\nPlot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in\nthe positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most\nimportant finding of the benchmark.\n\n## How to collect the data\n\nFor each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):\n\n1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing\n   posture, named clients, manifesto\u002FPOV. Screenshot the homepage + one case\n   study.\n2. **Case studies \u002F work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.\n   Distinguish *asserted* (\"we delivered X\") from *proven* (metrics, named,\n   verifiable).\n3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model\n   → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).\n4. **LinkedIn** — team size\u002Fmodel, founder narrative, content cadence →\n   thought leadership, model.\n5. **Portfolio \u002F craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to\n   the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).\n6. **Content channels** — newsletter\u002Ftalks\u002Fwriting → thought-leadership depth.\n\n**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the\nsource link\u002Fscreenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.\n\n## Bias controls\n\n- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot\n  separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.\n- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility\u002Fevidence scores for\n  self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.\n- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic\n  they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and\n  credibility independently; a \"boring\" site may be winning bigger clients.\n- **Recency \u002F flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may\n  lack commercial depth — verify with directories\u002Fclients before scoring\n  credibility.\n- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;\n  note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories\u002Freviews.\n- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read\n  scores side-by-side — a \"4\" must mean the same thing for every competitor.\n  Adjust outliers.\n\n## Competitor profile card (output format)\n\nProduce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles\nfrom:\n\n```\n## \u003CCompetitor name>\n- **Profile \u002F Tier:** \u003Cpositioning stance · specialization · size band> \u002F \u003CDirect | Adjacent | Aspirational>\n- **One-liner:** \u003Chow they position themselves, in their words>\n- **Model \u002F size \u002F geography:** \u003Csolo|micro|boutique> · \u003Cregion> · \u003Cpricing\u002Fengagement model>\n- **Notable clients \u002F evidence:** \u003Cnamed, with proven\u002Fasserted tag>\n\n### Dimension scores\n| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |\n| Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness | | | |\n| Visual identity & site craft | | | |\n| Service offer & packaging | | | |\n| Evidence & credibility | | | |\n| Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity | | | |\n| Thought leadership \u002F content presence | | | |\n| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |\n\n### Tension plot\n- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **Quadrant:** \u003Chigh\u002Fhigh | high-1\u002Flow-2 | low-1\u002Fhigh-2 | low\u002Flow>\n\n### Read for [client]\n- **Strength to learn from:** \u003C…>\n- **Weakness to exploit \u002F white-space it exposes:** \u003C…>\n- **Threat to [client]:** \u003C…>\n```\n\nHand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.\n- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.\n- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.\n- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.\n- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.\n- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.\n",{"name":5,"license":14,"description":7},"main","068c2486ccc0f8d200a3db4d21ec137064eda3b4","skills\u002Fpublic-07-ecc-main-skills-benchmark-methodology-skill-86aa8dac","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV","2026-08-25 16:30:52",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":50,"prompt":60,"zipAvailable":61},[51,54,57],{"tool":52,"command":53},"npx","npx skills add JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing --skill benchmark-methodology",{"tool":55,"command":56},"bunx","bunx skills add JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing --skill benchmark-methodology",{"tool":58,"command":59},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing --skill benchmark-methodology","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-07-ecc-main-skills-benchmark-methodology-skill-86aa8dac\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[64,89,117,150,177,212],{"skillNo":65,"name":66,"nameZh":6,"description":67,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":68,"categories":69,"keywords":70,"publishedAt":38},"01M6NN9PJS9NHWPDG4QP93BP8F","webmcpify","Make a web app agent-ready — propose a WebMCP tool manifest, integrate, verify in a real browser, heal; unrelated code stays untouched. Use for \"webmcpify\", \"add WebMCP\", or \"expose app actions to AI agents\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwebmcpify\u002FSKILL.md",[],[66,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,34,83,84,85,86,87,88],"github","ai agents","web","notes","code","browser","https","actions","manifest","inventory","verify","tool","ready","unrelated","app","scope","for","webmcp",{"skillNo":90,"name":91,"nameZh":6,"description":92,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":93,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":96,"publishedAt":38},"01M6NN6KZE5RBN6NGHN2WXV1RE","vardoger-analyze","Use when the user asks to personalize the GitHub Copilot CLI assistant, adapt Copilot to their style, use vardoger, or analyze their Copilot CLI conversation history. Reads the local session directory at `~\u002F.copilot\u002Fsession-state\u002F`, extracts recurring preferences and conventions, and writes a fenced personalization block into `~\u002F.copilot\u002Fcopilot-instructions.md`. Runs entirely on the user's machine via the local `vardoger` CLI (`pipx install vardoger`); no network calls and no uploads. Triggers: 'personalize my copilot', 'analyze my copilot history', 'tailor copilot to me', 'run vardoger', 'update my copilot instructions from history', 'make copilot learn my style'.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvardoger-analyze\u002FSKILL.md",[],[97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116],"vardoger analyze","analyze","directory","cli","github copilot","copilot","run","update","learn","network","my style","install","conversation","me","local","github copilot cli","pipx","my","at","copilot instructions",{"skillNo":118,"name":119,"nameZh":6,"description":120,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":121,"categories":122,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":38},"01M6NN3CZGQP3XAJ04BM1NNYGT","transloadit-media-processing","Process media files (video, audio, images, documents) using Transloadit. Use when asked to encode video to HLS\u002FMP4, generate thumbnails, resize or watermark images, extract audio, concatenate clips, add subtitles, OCR documents, or run any media processing pipeline. Covers 86+ processing robots for file transformation at scale.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftransloadit-media-processing\u002FSKILL.md",[123,128],{"categoryNo":124,"categoryName":125,"taxonomyType":126,"taxonomyTypeDesc":127},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000016","图像与多媒体","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":129,"categoryName":130,"taxonomyType":126,"taxonomyTypeDesc":127},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,34,145,146,147,148,87,149],"transloadit media processing","Media","media processing","processing","MCP","mcp server","documents","subtitles","pipeline","ocr","Video","Audio","mp4","images","files","transformation","free","hls",{"skillNo":151,"name":152,"nameZh":6,"description":153,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":154,"categories":155,"keywords":159,"publishedAt":38},"01M6NN28E92F9GH4WFYQ2H1Y15","terraform-azurerm-set-diff-analyzer","Analyze Terraform plan JSON output for AzureRM Provider to distinguish between false-positive diffs (order-only changes in Set-type attributes) and actual resource changes. Use when reviewing terraform plan output for Azure resources like Application Gateway, Load Balancer, Firewall, Front Door, NSG, and other resources with Set-type attributes that cause spurious diffs due to internal ordering changes.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fterraform-azurerm-set-diff-analyzer\u002FSKILL.md",[156],{"categoryNo":157,"categoryName":158,"taxonomyType":126,"taxonomyTypeDesc":127},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000011","运维与部署",[160,37,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,34,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,87],"terraform","terraform azurerm set diff analyzer","diff","analyzer","diffs","azure","gateway","firewall","only","resource changes","provider","resources","load balancer","attributes","front","load","balancer",{"skillNo":178,"name":179,"nameZh":6,"description":180,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":181,"categories":182,"keywords":194,"publishedAt":38},"01M6NN1QMH2TDYWTH3XY3N5XPV","technical-job-search","Use this skill when a software engineer asks for help with job search tasks: parsing or analyzing a job description, tailoring a CV\u002Fresume, writing a cover letter, evaluating a job offer, or drafting a post-interview follow-up email. Do not activate for general career advice unrelated to an active job search action.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftechnical-job-search\u002FSKILL.md",[183,186,191],{"categoryNo":184,"categoryName":185,"taxonomyType":126,"taxonomyTypeDesc":127},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":187,"categoryName":188,"taxonomyType":189,"taxonomyTypeDesc":190},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":192,"categoryName":193,"taxonomyType":189,"taxonomyTypeDesc":190},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000038","人力资源",[195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,98,203,34,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,87,211],"search","Job Search","technical job search","technical","writing","tasks","email","parsing","interview","up","engineer","general","activate","do","task","cv","letter",{"skillNo":213,"name":214,"nameZh":6,"description":215,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":216,"categories":217,"keywords":218,"publishedAt":38},"01M6NMZFA67XYS1GS09WT42235","steno-mode","Shorthand-first response compression that cuts ~40% of response tokens while preserving technical precision and exact literals. Use when the user says \"steno mode\", \"shorthand mode\", \"compressed responses\", \"token reduction\", \"brief structured output\", or invokes \u002Fsteno. Supports four compression levels: lite, brief, court, machine. Do not trigger for requests needing polished prose such as onboarding\u002Ftutorial content, stakeholder or customer-facing copy, or teaching-focused explanations.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsteno-mode\u002FSKILL.md",[],[219,220,221,222,223,198,224,34,208,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,87,234],"steno mode","mode","customer","brief","first","tutorial","teaching","tokens","as","trigger","structured output","machine","output","court","requests","response compression"]