[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6R95GQDGNGATTYVS1ABWFNQ":3,"skill-same:01M6R95GQDGNGATTYVS1ABWFNQ":77},{"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":49,"linkOnly":50,"markdownContent":51,"markdownBody":52,"frontMatter":53,"refName":54,"commitSha":55,"skillDirectory":56,"forksCount":57,"repositoryHtmlUrl":58,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":59,"ownerBlogUrl":60,"ownerDescription":61,"updatedAt":62,"install":63,"resources":76},"01M6R95GQDGNGATTYVS1ABWFNQ","code-review",null,"Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue\u002FPRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\".","Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack","Nairon-AI","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F260662138?v=4","01M6R8PZ1Y8CSQGFN61VACZGTH","Nairon AI","01M6R8PZ6184VR3BA88YZFBC3N",4,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fengineering\u002Fcode-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",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48],"review","code review","code","when","point","changes","for","reviews","progress","what the","reports","standards","use","repo","branch","work","parallel","pr","merge","commit","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: code-review\ndescription: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue\u002FPRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\".\n---\n\nTwo-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:\n\n- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?\n- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue \u002F PRD \u002F spec?\n\nBoth axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.\n\nThe issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `\u002Fsetup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md` is missing.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Pin the fixed point\n\nWhatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.\n\nCapture the diff command once: `git diff \u003Cfixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log \u003Cfixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.\n\nBefore going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse \u003Cfixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.\n\n### 2. Identify the spec source\n\nLook for the originating spec, in this order:\n\n1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md`.\n2. A path the user passed as an argument.\n3. A PRD\u002Fspec file under `docs\u002F`, `specs\u002F`, or `.scratch\u002F` matching the branch name or feature.\n4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report \"no spec available\".\n\n### 3. Identify the standards sources\n\nAnything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.\n\nOn top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:\n\n- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.\n- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic (\"possible Feature Envy\"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.\n\nEach smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:\n\n- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.\n- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.\n- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.\n- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.\n- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.\n- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`\u002F`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.\n- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.\n- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.\n- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.\n- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.\n- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.\n- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.\n\n### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel\n\nSend a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.\n\n**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The full diff command and commit list.\n- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.\n- The brief: \"Report — per file\u002Fhunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words.\"\n\n**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The diff command and commit list.\n- The path or fetched contents of the spec.\n- The brief: \"Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words.\"\n\nIf the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.\n\n### 5. Aggregate\n\nPresent the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).\n\nEnd with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.\n\n## Why two axes\n\nA change can pass one axis and fail the other:\n\n- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**\n- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**\n\nReporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.\n","Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:\n\n- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?\n- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue \u002F PRD \u002F spec?\n\nBoth axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.\n\nThe issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `\u002Fsetup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md` is missing.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Pin the fixed point\n\nWhatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.\n\nCapture the diff command once: `git diff \u003Cfixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log \u003Cfixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.\n\nBefore going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse \u003Cfixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.\n\n### 2. Identify the spec source\n\nLook for the originating spec, in this order:\n\n1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md`.\n2. A path the user passed as an argument.\n3. A PRD\u002Fspec file under `docs\u002F`, `specs\u002F`, or `.scratch\u002F` matching the branch name or feature.\n4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report \"no spec available\".\n\n### 3. Identify the standards sources\n\nAnything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.\n\nOn top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:\n\n- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.\n- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic (\"possible Feature Envy\"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.\n\nEach smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:\n\n- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.\n- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.\n- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.\n- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.\n- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.\n- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`\u002F`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.\n- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.\n- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.\n- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.\n- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.\n- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.\n- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.\n\n### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel\n\nSend a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.\n\n**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The full diff command and commit list.\n- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.\n- The brief: \"Report — per file\u002Fhunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words.\"\n\n**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:\n\n- The diff command and commit list.\n- The path or fetched contents of the spec.\n- The brief: \"Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words.\"\n\nIf the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.\n\n### 5. Aggregate\n\nPresent the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).\n\nEnd with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.\n\n## Why two axes\n\nA change can pass one axis and fail the other:\n\n- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**\n- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**\n\nReporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","c9d0c408715983e993b2f9ebffdbfa7f10153bcb","engineering\u002Fcode-review",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.naironai.com\u002F","Building the future of Work","2026-09-20 17:40:05",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":64,"prompt":74,"zipAvailable":75},[65,68,71],{"tool":66,"command":67},"npx","npx skills add Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack --skill code-review",{"tool":69,"command":70},"bunx","bunx skills add Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack --skill code-review",{"tool":72,"command":73},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack --skill code-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fengineering\u002Fcode-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[78,109,130,151,171,192],{"skillNo":79,"name":80,"nameZh":6,"description":81,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":82,"categories":83,"keywords":90,"publishedAt":49},"01M6RBCG630Y8X99XWR9Q4GYNY","writing-shape","Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fwriting-shape\u002FSKILL.md",[84,87],{"categoryNo":85,"categoryName":86,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":88,"categoryName":89,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,41,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,32],"writing","writing shape","shape","notes","help","file","markdown","format","session","take","draft","article","material","it","about","quotes","at","candidate",{"skillNo":110,"name":111,"nameZh":6,"description":112,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":113,"categories":114,"keywords":117,"publishedAt":49},"01M6RBCCCB1KMF01P5SYGFWBSW","writing-fragments","Grilling session that mines the user for fragments — heterogeneous nuggets of writing (claims, vignettes, sharp sentences, half-thoughts) — and appends them to a single document as raw material for a future article. Use when the user wants to develop ideas before imposing structure, or mentions \"fragments\", \"ideate\", or \"raw material\" for writing.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fwriting-fragments\u002FSKILL.md",[115,116],{"categoryNo":85,"categoryName":86,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":88,"categoryName":89,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[91,118,119,120,121,122,99,41,123,124,125,102,126,103,127,128,35,129,32],"writing fragments","grilling","ideate","develop","user","document","structure","ideas","as","sharp","claims","single",{"skillNo":131,"name":132,"nameZh":6,"description":133,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":134,"categories":135,"keywords":138,"publishedAt":49},"01M6RBC8V7NHHKMTAZB4BPXVYQ","writing-beats","Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fwriting-beats\u002FSKILL.md",[136,137],{"categoryNo":85,"categoryName":86,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":88,"categoryName":89,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[91,139,140,141,41,142,143,93,144,145,146,102,147,126,148,103,149,150,35,32],"writing beats","choose","write","assemble","only","journey","next","options","end","style","narrative","argument",{"skillNo":152,"name":153,"nameZh":6,"description":154,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":155,"categories":156,"keywords":159,"publishedAt":49},"01M6RBC58SG5Y5SC4ZV4ZNEFHC","stop-slop","Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use when drafting, editing, or reviewing text to eliminate predictable AI tells.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fstop-slop\u002FSKILL.md",[157,158],{"categoryNo":85,"categoryName":86,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":88,"categoryName":89,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[160,161,162,91,163,164,165,166,167,41,168,169,170,35,32],"stop","stop slop","slop","content","https","text","editing","remove","prose","patterns","drafts",{"skillNo":172,"name":173,"nameZh":6,"description":174,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":175,"categories":176,"keywords":179,"publishedAt":49},"01M6RBBJTTCJ7KZCP16G9JDFZH","humanizer","Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Use when editing or reviewing\ntext to make it sound more natural and human-written. Based on Wikipedia's\ncomprehensive \"Signs of AI writing\" guide. Detects and fixes patterns including:\ninflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague\nattributions, em dash overuse, rule of three, AI vocabulary words, passive\nvoice, negative parallelisms, and filler phrases.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fhumanizer\u002FSKILL.md",[177,178],{"categoryNo":85,"categoryName":86,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":88,"categoryName":89,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[173,91,31,180,165,181,141,182,183,167,184,185,169,186,187,188,189,190,191,32],"em dash","read","edit","generated","guide","opencode","three","human","make","wikipedia","vague","dash",{"skillNo":193,"name":194,"nameZh":6,"description":195,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":196,"categories":197,"keywords":198,"publishedAt":49},"01M6RBBEQKJ5HRH8AV9J85QB1T","feedback","Prepare, deliver, and debrief timely interpersonal feedback using a question-first coaching flow, observable behavior, owned experience, and concrete impact. Use when drafting feedback, coaching managers, rehearsing a feedback conversation, praising specific behavior, or reviewing whether feedback landed.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Ffeedback\u002FSKILL.md",[],[194,199,200,201,202,203,41,204,205,206,207,208,32,209],"prepare","flow","first","question","behavior","conversation","coaching","debrief","impact","managers","deliver"]