[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6QH1995R5VTFST50XKW2D71":3,"skill-same:01M6QH1995R5VTFST50XKW2D71":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},"01M6QH1995R5VTFST50XKW2D71","bmad-review-edge-case-hunter",null,"Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.","ImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager","ImaginerLabs","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F214277308?v=4","01M6QGGDPNF15RMMT1RCFDH9FN","01M6QGGDTH5BY64DQ123NR8M33",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.codebuddy\u002Fskills\u002Fbmad-review-edge-case-hunter\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"case","edge","hunter","bmad review edge case hunter","bmad review edge case","review","bmad review","bmad","only","adversarial","you","branching","condition","use","boundary","analysis","report","code","adversarial review","diffs","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: bmad-review-edge-case-hunter\ndescription: 'Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.'\n---\n\n# Edge Case Hunter Review\n\n**Goal:** You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling.\nWhen a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff.\nWhen no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.\nIgnore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.\n\n**Inputs:**\n- **content** — Content to review: diff, full file, or function\n- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis\n\n**MANDATORY: Execute steps in the Execution section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. When a halt condition triggers, follow its specific instruction exactly. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.**\n\n**Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition. Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently. Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only.**\n\n\n## EXECUTION\n\n### Step 1: Receive Content\n\n- Load the content to review strictly from provided input\n- If content is empty, or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{\"location\":\"N\u002FA\",\"trigger_condition\":\"Input empty or undecodable\",\"guard_snippet\":\"Provide valid content to review\",\"potential_consequence\":\"Review skipped — no analysis performed\"}]` and stop\n- Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules\n\n### Step 2: Exhaustive Path Analysis\n\n**Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope — report only unhandled ones.**\n\n- If `also_consider` input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis\n- Walk all branching paths: control flow (conditionals, loops, error handlers, early returns) and domain boundaries (where values, states, or conditions transition). Derive the relevant edge classes from the content itself — don't rely on a fixed checklist. Examples: missing else\u002Fdefault, unguarded inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps\n- For each path: determine whether the content handles it\n- Collect only the unhandled paths as findings — discard handled ones silently\n\n### Step 3: Validate Completeness\n\n- Revisit every edge class from Step 2 — e.g., missing else\u002Fdefault, null\u002Fempty inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps\n- Add any newly found unhandled paths to findings; discard confirmed-handled ones\n\n### Step 4: Present Findings\n\nOutput findings as a JSON array following the Output Format specification exactly.\n\n\n## OUTPUT FORMAT\n\nReturn ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each object must contain exactly these four fields and nothing else:\n\n```json\n[{\n  \"location\": \"file:start-end (or file:line when single line, or file:hunk when exact line unavailable)\",\n  \"trigger_condition\": \"one-line description (max 15 words)\",\n  \"guard_snippet\": \"minimal code sketch that closes the gap (single-line escaped string, no raw newlines or unescaped quotes)\",\n  \"potential_consequence\": \"what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)\"\n}]\n```\n\nNo extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping. An empty array `[]` is valid when no unhandled paths are found.\n\n\n## HALT CONDITIONS\n\n- If content is empty or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{\"location\":\"N\u002FA\",\"trigger_condition\":\"Input empty or undecodable\",\"guard_snippet\":\"Provide valid content to review\",\"potential_consequence\":\"Review skipped — no analysis performed\"}]` and stop\n","# Edge Case Hunter Review\n\n**Goal:** You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling.\nWhen a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff.\nWhen no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.\nIgnore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.\n\n**Inputs:**\n- **content** — Content to review: diff, full file, or function\n- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis\n\n**MANDATORY: Execute steps in the Execution section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. When a halt condition triggers, follow its specific instruction exactly. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.**\n\n**Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition. Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently. Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only.**\n\n\n## EXECUTION\n\n### Step 1: Receive Content\n\n- Load the content to review strictly from provided input\n- If content is empty, or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{\"location\":\"N\u002FA\",\"trigger_condition\":\"Input empty or undecodable\",\"guard_snippet\":\"Provide valid content to review\",\"potential_consequence\":\"Review skipped — no analysis performed\"}]` and stop\n- Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules\n\n### Step 2: Exhaustive Path Analysis\n\n**Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope — report only unhandled ones.**\n\n- If `also_consider` input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis\n- Walk all branching paths: control flow (conditionals, loops, error handlers, early returns) and domain boundaries (where values, states, or conditions transition). Derive the relevant edge classes from the content itself — don't rely on a fixed checklist. Examples: missing else\u002Fdefault, unguarded inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps\n- For each path: determine whether the content handles it\n- Collect only the unhandled paths as findings — discard handled ones silently\n\n### Step 3: Validate Completeness\n\n- Revisit every edge class from Step 2 — e.g., missing else\u002Fdefault, null\u002Fempty inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps\n- Add any newly found unhandled paths to findings; discard confirmed-handled ones\n\n### Step 4: Present Findings\n\nOutput findings as a JSON array following the Output Format specification exactly.\n\n\n## OUTPUT FORMAT\n\nReturn ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each object must contain exactly these four fields and nothing else:\n\n```json\n[{\n  \"location\": \"file:start-end (or file:line when single line, or file:hunk when exact line unavailable)\",\n  \"trigger_condition\": \"one-line description (max 15 words)\",\n  \"guard_snippet\": \"minimal code sketch that closes the gap (single-line escaped string, no raw newlines or unescaped quotes)\",\n  \"potential_consequence\": \"what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)\"\n}]\n```\n\nNo extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping. An empty array `[]` is valid when no unhandled paths are found.\n\n\n## HALT CONDITIONS\n\n- If content is empty or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{\"location\":\"N\u002FA\",\"trigger_condition\":\"Input empty or undecodable\",\"guard_snippet\":\"Provide valid content to review\",\"potential_consequence\":\"Review skipped — no analysis performed\"}]` and stop\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","b9a52d8e27455bdad953d64928696d028223ea1b",".codebuddy\u002Fskills\u002Fbmad-review-edge-case-hunter","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs","2026-04-18 16:27:13",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":50,"prompt":60,"zipAvailable":61},[51,54,57],{"tool":52,"command":53},"npx","npx skills add ImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager --skill bmad-review-edge-case-hunter",{"tool":55,"command":56},"bunx","bunx skills add ImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager --skill bmad-review-edge-case-hunter",{"tool":58,"command":59},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add ImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager --skill bmad-review-edge-case-hunter","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.codebuddy\u002Fskills\u002Fbmad-review-edge-case-hunter\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[64,99,120,148,181,205],{"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":80,"publishedAt":38},"01M6QJCB2SD5KHC41ZDQC0GA1T","meeting-minutes","Generate concise, actionable meeting minutes for internal meetings. Includes metadata, attendees, agenda, decisions, action items (owner + due date), and follow-up steps.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting\u002Fmeeting-minutes\u002FSKILL.md",[70,75],{"categoryNo":71,"categoryName":72,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":76,"categoryName":77,"taxonomyType":78,"taxonomyTypeDesc":79},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000034","行政与办公人员","PROFESSION","适用职业",[81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,66,43,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98],"meeting minutes","meeting","minutes","writing","github","copilot","generate","decisions","meetings","up","agenda","actionable","concise","follow-up","tree","true","action","for",{"skillNo":100,"name":101,"nameZh":6,"description":102,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":103,"categories":104,"keywords":105,"publishedAt":38},"01M6QJC71RRGTGNNFEHJG6S20G","documentation-writer","Diátaxis Documentation Expert. An expert technical writer specializing in creating high-quality software documentation, guided by the principles and structure of the Diátaxis technical documentation authoring framework.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting\u002Fdocumentation-writer\u002FSKILL.md",[],[106,107,108,84,85,86,109,110,111,112,113,114,43,115,116,117,118,95,96,119],"documentation","documentation writer","writer","https","quality","technical","technical writer","expert","documentation expert","structure","authoring","software","principles","high",{"skillNo":121,"name":122,"nameZh":6,"description":123,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":124,"categories":125,"keywords":133,"publishedAt":38},"01M6QJC0V3C7C4R9768J1AJYWY","doc-coauthoring","Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting\u002Fdoc-coauthoring\u002FSKILL.md",[126,129,130],{"categoryNo":127,"categoryName":128,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":71,"categoryName":72,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},{"categoryNo":131,"categoryName":132,"taxonomyType":78,"taxonomyTypeDesc":79},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[134,135,84,136,137,106,138,139,140,141,142,143,43,144,145,116,146,147,95,98],"doc coauthoring","doc","workflow","official","tasks","decision","write","context","proposals","guide","refine","iteration","trigger","co",{"skillNo":149,"name":150,"nameZh":6,"description":151,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":152,"categories":153,"keywords":164,"publishedAt":38},"01M6QJBJ0YPVEWGEXZH3PJRRTT","code-review-workflow","Executes comprehensive 4-phase code review: basic review, quality check, bundle analysis, and test coverage. Should be used when the user mentions comprehensive code review, checking code quality, or reviewing staged changes with multi-phase analysis. This is the comprehensive review workflow, distinct from focused skills like frontend-code-review, staged-code-review, or code-change-test-designer.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftesting\u002Fcode-review-workflow\u002FSKILL.md",[154,157,160,161],{"categoryNo":155,"categoryName":156,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":158,"categoryName":159,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":71,"categoryName":72,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},{"categoryNo":162,"categoryName":163,"taxonomyType":78,"taxonomyTypeDesc":79},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师",[165,23,136,35,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,33,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180],"code review","code review workflow","testing","frontend","test","change","code quality","code-review","check","coverage","quality check","basic","multi","comprehensive code review","with","phase",{"skillNo":182,"name":183,"nameZh":6,"description":184,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":185,"categories":186,"keywords":196,"publishedAt":38},"01M6QJB7XNHV3VEEQF4W7FMWF6","code-change-test-designer","Analyzes code changes and designs comprehensive test cases. Reads diffs, summarizes capability changes, and designs test cases covering main flows and edge cases. Should be used when the user mentions test coverage, designing tests for code changes, or analyzing diff\u002Fcommit for testing purposes. Distinguished from code-review-workflow which provides comprehensive review, this skill focuses on test case design for code changes.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftesting\u002Fcode-change-test-designer\u002FSKILL.md",[187,188,191,192,193],{"categoryNo":158,"categoryName":159,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},{"categoryNo":189,"categoryName":190,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计",{"categoryNo":71,"categoryName":72,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},{"categoryNo":162,"categoryName":163,"taxonomyType":78,"taxonomyTypeDesc":79},{"categoryNo":194,"categoryName":195,"taxonomyType":78,"taxonomyTypeDesc":79},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000032","设计师",[169,170,35,197,198,167,199,37,136,200,172,19,174,201,43,202,203,204,98,180],"designer","code change test designer","design","commit","diff","tests","flows","which",{"skillNo":206,"name":207,"nameZh":6,"description":208,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":209,"categories":210,"keywords":212,"publishedAt":38},"01M6QJB195WD7DCJWDMKWKB29S","skill-creator","Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FImaginerLabs\u002Fskill-manager\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fmeta-skills\u002Fskill-creator\u002FSKILL.md",[211],{"categoryNo":71,"categoryName":72,"taxonomyType":73,"taxonomyTypeDesc":74},[213,214,215,216,137,217,218,219,220,221,33,222,223,224,43,225,226,95,98,207],"skill creator","creator","performance","run evals","variance analysis","create","run","benchmark","Meta","improve","edit","evals","optimize","existing skill"]