[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M70FGSAH3W201RXKXTY30P8P":3,"skill-same:01M70FGSAH3W201RXKXTY30P8P":87},{"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":31,"publishedAt":52,"linkOnly":53,"markdownContent":54,"markdownBody":55,"frontMatter":56,"refName":65,"commitSha":66,"skillDirectory":67,"forksCount":68,"repositoryHtmlUrl":69,"repositoryHomepageUrl":70,"ownerHtmlUrl":71,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":72,"install":73,"resources":86},"01M70FGSAH3W201RXKXTY30P8P","literature-review",null,"Organize multiple sources into a thematic matrix with cross-source synthesis and gap analysis, stating detected theme and source counts at the top of the output.","jmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit","jmlozano1990","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F212240889?v=4","01M70FFEFRFH4C54MRVST1ZZFW","JmLozano","01M70FFEGEGDMH4RS95JKWH95M",6,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fexamples\u002Fresearch\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fliterature-review\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23,26],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000021","资料检索与研究",{"categoryNo":27,"categoryName":28,"taxonomyType":29,"taxonomyTypeDesc":30},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51],"literature","literature review","review","gap analysis","lit","for","theme","source","organize","matrix","write","at","top","me","code","analysis","writing","survey","papers","sources","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: literature-review\ndescription: Organize multiple sources into a thematic matrix with cross-source synthesis and gap analysis, stating detected theme and source counts at the top of the output.\ntools: [claude-code]\ntrigger_examples:\n  - \"Write a literature review on [X]\"\n  - \"Give me a lit review of these papers\"\n  - \"I'm writing a survey on [X]\"\n  - \"I need the lit review chapter for [Z]\"\n  - \"What are the research gaps in [topic]?\"\n---\n\n## When to use\n\nUse this skill when the user supplies multiple sources — papers, abstracts, excerpts, or articles — and needs a structured thematic review rather than a flat summary or per-source analysis. Literature review is thematic by definition: it organizes the source set by concept or argument, not by publication date.\n\nDistinct from research synthesis: literature review groups sources under auto-detected themes (rows) and evaluates each theme across the source set (columns = sources). Research synthesis produces a 7-column per-source matrix. Use literature review when the output is a review-style document intended for a paper, thesis, or survey chapter.\n\nIf the user needs a citation-worthy structured document with explicit agreements, disagreements, and gaps framed at peer-review rigor, prefer research-synthesis instead.\n\n## Triggers\n\n- User says \"Write a literature review on [X]\" or \"Give me a lit review of these papers\" — highest-confidence direct invocation.\n- User pastes 3 or more abstracts, excerpts, or papers with no specific ask — proactively offer literature review.\n- User says \"I'm writing a survey on [X]\" or \"I need to cover the field of [Y]\" — offer literature review as the primary deliverable.\n- User says \"I need the lit review chapter for [Z]\" (thesis or dissertation context) — offer literature review with expanded gap analysis; thesis gap sections are typically longer than paper gap sections.\n\n## Instructions\n\n1. Read all provided sources fully before detecting themes.\n2. Auto-detect themes from the source set — do not impose themes from outside the sources. A theme is a concept, argument, or research question that at least two sources address directly or implicitly.\n3. State the detected theme count and source count in one line at the top of the output (e.g., \"**Themes detected:** 3 (Capacity, Components, Evolution of model). **Sources:** 3.\") so the user can recalibrate scope before reading further.\n4. Build the thematic matrix: rows = themes, columns = sources. Each cell describes how that source addresses the row's theme, using terse noun phrases. Write \"—\" if the source does not address the theme.\n5. For each theme, write a thematic synthesis paragraph that compares how sources treat the theme — do not summarize sources in sequence. Surface agreements, tensions, and nuance across sources.\n6. Write the `## Research Gaps` section: list 2–5 gaps, each with a bold gap name and a short explanatory clause. A gap is a theme that is under-covered across the source set, a methodological weakness shared by most sources, or an important question none of the sources address.\n7. Distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary sources where relevant. Note if a source is a review paper or meta-review (tertiary); do not treat its claims as primary evidence.\n8. If source methodology is relevant to the theme, note methodological differences in the matrix cell or in the synthesis paragraph — sources using incompatible designs cannot be directly compared without flagging the mismatch.\n9. Apply the writing-profile rule from `## Writing-profile integration` to synthesis paragraphs and gap clauses.\n10. Apply the BibTeX extension if the user has supplied citation keys or `.bib` entries.\n\n## Output format\n\nPlain GitHub-flavored markdown in the chat.\n\n**Header line (required):** One line stating theme count, theme names, and source count. Example: `**Themes detected:** 3 (Capacity, Components, Evolution). **Sources:** 3.`\n\n**Thematic matrix block:** Standard markdown table — rows = themes, columns = sources. Cells are terse noun phrases. Write \"—\" for absent coverage.\n\n**Thematic synthesis section:** One subsection per theme (use `**Theme name.**` bold inline header or `### Theme name` subheading). Each subsection is a prose paragraph comparing how sources treat the theme — not a per-source summary.\n\n**Research Gaps section:** Headed `## Research Gaps`. Bullet list of 2–5 gaps, each formatted as `- **Gap name** — short explanatory clause.`\n\n**BibTeX-aware extension (conditional):** If the user supplies citation keys or `.bib` entries, render each source column header with `@key` and use `[@key]` inline citations in synthesis paragraphs. Otherwise use `Author (Year)` format.\n\nNo Obsidian `[[wikilinks]]`. No JSON or YAML sidecar. No CSV export. Output is portable across Obsidian, Notion, Apple Notes, Logseq, plain-text editors, and academic writing tools.\n\n## Quality criteria\n\n1. Themes auto-detected from the source set — not imposed externally. Theme count and source count stated at top.\n2. Every matrix cell traces back to a specific source passage — no hallucinated claims.\n3. Thematic synthesis produces cross-source comparison, not per-source summary.\n4. Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are distinguished (noted in matrix or synthesis).\n5. Methodology assessment present — notes where sources use incompatible designs.\n6. `## Research Gaps` section lists 2–5 gaps, each with a short explanatory clause.\n7. Matrix cells terse; synthesis prose and gap clauses adapt to writing-profile.md.\n\n## Anti-patterns\n\n- Chronological-only ordering of sources, ignoring thematic structure — literature review is thematic by definition.\n- No cross-source thematic synthesis — each theme row must compare how sources treat the theme, not list their contents in sequence.\n- No research gap identification — a literature review without gaps is a summary, not a review.\n- Treating review papers as primary sources — meta-reviews of other reviews must be labeled tertiary.\n- Citation drift — a claim in the thematic synthesis cannot be traced back to a specific source column.\n- No methodology assessment — ignoring that sources may use incompatible designs (empirical vs. theoretical vs. review).\n- Listing sources without critical evaluation — descriptive paraphrases only, no judgment on evidence quality or authority.\n\n## Example\n\n**Input (3 abstracts):**\n\n> **Miller (1956).** \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.\" Reviews span-of-attention and immediate-memory experiments across modalities. Proposes capacity ≈ 7±2 items.\n>\n> **Baddeley (2000).** \"The Episodic Buffer.\" Theoretical extension of the 1974 Baddeley & Hitch working-memory model, adding a fourth component (episodic buffer) that integrates phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and long-term memory.\n>\n> **Cowan (2001).** \"The Magical Number 4 in Short-Term Memory.\" Multi-paradigm review (visual arrays, running span, auditory recall) arguing active-focus capacity is ~4 items once chunking and rehearsal are controlled.\n\n**Output:**\n\n```markdown\n# Literature review: Working-memory capacity and architecture\n\n**Themes detected:** 3 (Capacity, Components, Evolution of model). **Sources:** 3.\n\n## Thematic matrix\n\n| Theme | Miller (1956) | Baddeley (2000) | Cowan (2001) |\n|-------|---------------|-----------------|--------------|\n| Capacity | ~7±2 items across modalities (conflates chunked & unchunked units) | — (capacity not the focus) | ~4 items active focus (chunking\u002Frehearsal controlled) |\n| Components | Single undifferentiated short-term store | 4-component model (central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer) | Attentional-focus model, orthogonal to component theory |\n| Evolution of model | Foundational (1956 baseline) | Extends Baddeley & Hitch (1974) with episodic buffer for LTM integration | Refines Miller (1956) downward; attentional rather than structural |\n\n## Thematic synthesis\n\n**Capacity.** The field shifted from Miller's 7±2 (observable span) toward Cowan's ~4 (underlying active focus) as chunking and rehearsal were controlled for. These are not contradictory — they operate at different levels of analysis.\n\n**Components.** Baddeley (2000) treats working memory as structurally partitioned (multiple stores + a buffer). Cowan (2001) treats it as attention-limited (a focus window). Miller (1956) predates both debates.\n\n**Evolution.** Baddeley (2000) is cumulative — extends the 1974 model. Cowan (2001) is revisionary — narrows Miller (1956). The field has diverged from a single-store view into two parallel research programs.\n\n## Research Gaps\n\n- **Neuroimaging evidence absent** — no source cites fMRI or EEG evidence for the proposed components or capacity bounds. A 21st-century neuroimaging review would anchor the structural\u002Fattentional debate in biological evidence.\n- **Individual differences** — capacity estimates are reported as population means; no source addresses variance across age, working-memory disorders, or expertise-driven chunking differences.\n- **Cross-modal interaction** — the phonological loop vs. visuospatial sketchpad boundary is treated as given; no source critically examines whether they genuinely dissociate at the neural level.\n```\n\n## Writing-profile integration\n\nFour-tier rule based on output section:\n\n- **Matrix cells:** Always terse — short noun phrases, no prose. `context\u002Fwriting-profile.md` is not consulted; cells are structured data, not sentences.\n- **Theme + source count line** (top of output): one-sentence factual statement, profile-neutral.\n- **Thematic synthesis paragraphs:** Full writing-profile consultation applies — tone, sentence-length preferences, and pet peeves from `context\u002Fwriting-profile.md`. Synthesis paragraphs typically exceed 100 words, triggering the adapt-to-profile rule. Apply the user's style to cross-source prose, not to matrix rows.\n- **Research Gaps bullets:** Adapt to writing-profile.md for the short explanatory clause after the bold gap name; the gap name itself stays terse.\n\n## Example prompts\n\n- \"Conduct a literature review on cognitive load theory using the papers in my Literature\u002F folder.\"\n- \"Organize these 5 papers into themes for a literature review section.\"\n- \"What gaps exist in the literature on attention and working memory based on my current sources?\"\n- \"I need the lit review chapter for my thesis on [topic] — start with these abstracts.\"\n","## When to use\n\nUse this skill when the user supplies multiple sources — papers, abstracts, excerpts, or articles — and needs a structured thematic review rather than a flat summary or per-source analysis. Literature review is thematic by definition: it organizes the source set by concept or argument, not by publication date.\n\nDistinct from research synthesis: literature review groups sources under auto-detected themes (rows) and evaluates each theme across the source set (columns = sources). Research synthesis produces a 7-column per-source matrix. Use literature review when the output is a review-style document intended for a paper, thesis, or survey chapter.\n\nIf the user needs a citation-worthy structured document with explicit agreements, disagreements, and gaps framed at peer-review rigor, prefer research-synthesis instead.\n\n## Triggers\n\n- User says \"Write a literature review on [X]\" or \"Give me a lit review of these papers\" — highest-confidence direct invocation.\n- User pastes 3 or more abstracts, excerpts, or papers with no specific ask — proactively offer literature review.\n- User says \"I'm writing a survey on [X]\" or \"I need to cover the field of [Y]\" — offer literature review as the primary deliverable.\n- User says \"I need the lit review chapter for [Z]\" (thesis or dissertation context) — offer literature review with expanded gap analysis; thesis gap sections are typically longer than paper gap sections.\n\n## Instructions\n\n1. Read all provided sources fully before detecting themes.\n2. Auto-detect themes from the source set — do not impose themes from outside the sources. A theme is a concept, argument, or research question that at least two sources address directly or implicitly.\n3. State the detected theme count and source count in one line at the top of the output (e.g., \"**Themes detected:** 3 (Capacity, Components, Evolution of model). **Sources:** 3.\") so the user can recalibrate scope before reading further.\n4. Build the thematic matrix: rows = themes, columns = sources. Each cell describes how that source addresses the row's theme, using terse noun phrases. Write \"—\" if the source does not address the theme.\n5. For each theme, write a thematic synthesis paragraph that compares how sources treat the theme — do not summarize sources in sequence. Surface agreements, tensions, and nuance across sources.\n6. Write the `## Research Gaps` section: list 2–5 gaps, each with a bold gap name and a short explanatory clause. A gap is a theme that is under-covered across the source set, a methodological weakness shared by most sources, or an important question none of the sources address.\n7. Distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary sources where relevant. Note if a source is a review paper or meta-review (tertiary); do not treat its claims as primary evidence.\n8. If source methodology is relevant to the theme, note methodological differences in the matrix cell or in the synthesis paragraph — sources using incompatible designs cannot be directly compared without flagging the mismatch.\n9. Apply the writing-profile rule from `## Writing-profile integration` to synthesis paragraphs and gap clauses.\n10. Apply the BibTeX extension if the user has supplied citation keys or `.bib` entries.\n\n## Output format\n\nPlain GitHub-flavored markdown in the chat.\n\n**Header line (required):** One line stating theme count, theme names, and source count. Example: `**Themes detected:** 3 (Capacity, Components, Evolution). **Sources:** 3.`\n\n**Thematic matrix block:** Standard markdown table — rows = themes, columns = sources. Cells are terse noun phrases. Write \"—\" for absent coverage.\n\n**Thematic synthesis section:** One subsection per theme (use `**Theme name.**` bold inline header or `### Theme name` subheading). Each subsection is a prose paragraph comparing how sources treat the theme — not a per-source summary.\n\n**Research Gaps section:** Headed `## Research Gaps`. Bullet list of 2–5 gaps, each formatted as `- **Gap name** — short explanatory clause.`\n\n**BibTeX-aware extension (conditional):** If the user supplies citation keys or `.bib` entries, render each source column header with `@key` and use `[@key]` inline citations in synthesis paragraphs. Otherwise use `Author (Year)` format.\n\nNo Obsidian `[[wikilinks]]`. No JSON or YAML sidecar. No CSV export. Output is portable across Obsidian, Notion, Apple Notes, Logseq, plain-text editors, and academic writing tools.\n\n## Quality criteria\n\n1. Themes auto-detected from the source set — not imposed externally. Theme count and source count stated at top.\n2. Every matrix cell traces back to a specific source passage — no hallucinated claims.\n3. Thematic synthesis produces cross-source comparison, not per-source summary.\n4. Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are distinguished (noted in matrix or synthesis).\n5. Methodology assessment present — notes where sources use incompatible designs.\n6. `## Research Gaps` section lists 2–5 gaps, each with a short explanatory clause.\n7. Matrix cells terse; synthesis prose and gap clauses adapt to writing-profile.md.\n\n## Anti-patterns\n\n- Chronological-only ordering of sources, ignoring thematic structure — literature review is thematic by definition.\n- No cross-source thematic synthesis — each theme row must compare how sources treat the theme, not list their contents in sequence.\n- No research gap identification — a literature review without gaps is a summary, not a review.\n- Treating review papers as primary sources — meta-reviews of other reviews must be labeled tertiary.\n- Citation drift — a claim in the thematic synthesis cannot be traced back to a specific source column.\n- No methodology assessment — ignoring that sources may use incompatible designs (empirical vs. theoretical vs. review).\n- Listing sources without critical evaluation — descriptive paraphrases only, no judgment on evidence quality or authority.\n\n## Example\n\n**Input (3 abstracts):**\n\n> **Miller (1956).** \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.\" Reviews span-of-attention and immediate-memory experiments across modalities. Proposes capacity ≈ 7±2 items.\n>\n> **Baddeley (2000).** \"The Episodic Buffer.\" Theoretical extension of the 1974 Baddeley & Hitch working-memory model, adding a fourth component (episodic buffer) that integrates phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and long-term memory.\n>\n> **Cowan (2001).** \"The Magical Number 4 in Short-Term Memory.\" Multi-paradigm review (visual arrays, running span, auditory recall) arguing active-focus capacity is ~4 items once chunking and rehearsal are controlled.\n\n**Output:**\n\n```markdown\n# Literature review: Working-memory capacity and architecture\n\n**Themes detected:** 3 (Capacity, Components, Evolution of model). **Sources:** 3.\n\n## Thematic matrix\n\n| Theme | Miller (1956) | Baddeley (2000) | Cowan (2001) |\n|-------|---------------|-----------------|--------------|\n| Capacity | ~7±2 items across modalities (conflates chunked & unchunked units) | — (capacity not the focus) | ~4 items active focus (chunking\u002Frehearsal controlled) |\n| Components | Single undifferentiated short-term store | 4-component model (central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer) | Attentional-focus model, orthogonal to component theory |\n| Evolution of model | Foundational (1956 baseline) | Extends Baddeley & Hitch (1974) with episodic buffer for LTM integration | Refines Miller (1956) downward; attentional rather than structural |\n\n## Thematic synthesis\n\n**Capacity.** The field shifted from Miller's 7±2 (observable span) toward Cowan's ~4 (underlying active focus) as chunking and rehearsal were controlled for. These are not contradictory — they operate at different levels of analysis.\n\n**Components.** Baddeley (2000) treats working memory as structurally partitioned (multiple stores + a buffer). Cowan (2001) treats it as attention-limited (a focus window). Miller (1956) predates both debates.\n\n**Evolution.** Baddeley (2000) is cumulative — extends the 1974 model. Cowan (2001) is revisionary — narrows Miller (1956). The field has diverged from a single-store view into two parallel research programs.\n\n## Research Gaps\n\n- **Neuroimaging evidence absent** — no source cites fMRI or EEG evidence for the proposed components or capacity bounds. A 21st-century neuroimaging review would anchor the structural\u002Fattentional debate in biological evidence.\n- **Individual differences** — capacity estimates are reported as population means; no source addresses variance across age, working-memory disorders, or expertise-driven chunking differences.\n- **Cross-modal interaction** — the phonological loop vs. visuospatial sketchpad boundary is treated as given; no source critically examines whether they genuinely dissociate at the neural level.\n```\n\n## Writing-profile integration\n\nFour-tier rule based on output section:\n\n- **Matrix cells:** Always terse — short noun phrases, no prose. `context\u002Fwriting-profile.md` is not consulted; cells are structured data, not sentences.\n- **Theme + source count line** (top of output): one-sentence factual statement, profile-neutral.\n- **Thematic synthesis paragraphs:** Full writing-profile consultation applies — tone, sentence-length preferences, and pet peeves from `context\u002Fwriting-profile.md`. Synthesis paragraphs typically exceed 100 words, triggering the adapt-to-profile rule. Apply the user's style to cross-source prose, not to matrix rows.\n- **Research Gaps bullets:** Adapt to writing-profile.md for the short explanatory clause after the bold gap name; the gap name itself stays terse.\n\n## Example prompts\n\n- \"Conduct a literature review on cognitive load theory using the papers in my Literature\u002F folder.\"\n- \"Organize these 5 papers into themes for a literature review section.\"\n- \"What gaps exist in the literature on attention and working memory based on my current sources?\"\n- \"I need the lit review chapter for my thesis on [topic] — start with these abstracts.\"\n",{"name":5,"tools":57,"description":7,"trigger_examples":59},[58],"claude-code",[60,61,62,63,64],"Write a literature review on [X]","Give me a lit review of these papers","I'm writing a survey on [X]","I need the lit review chapter for [Z]","What are the research gaps in [topic]?","main","3b46ce1bf0dafc2b8ad69a72e13e73aa538fb297","examples\u002Fresearch\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fliterature-review",1,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Freleases\u002Flatest","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990","2026-11-01 23:54:10",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":74,"prompt":84,"zipAvailable":85},[75,78,81],{"tool":76,"command":77},"npx","npx skills add jmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit --skill literature-review",{"tool":79,"command":80},"bunx","bunx skills add jmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit --skill literature-review",{"tool":82,"command":83},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add jmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit --skill literature-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fexamples\u002Fresearch\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fliterature-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[88,98,107,115,123,132],{"skillNo":89,"name":90,"nameZh":6,"description":6,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":91,"categories":92,"keywords":93,"publishedAt":52},"01M70FMH5856SZTHFW424V3KKV","my-shopping-helper","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbrownfield\u002Fstale-skills\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fmy-shopping-helper\u002FSKILL.md",[],[94,95,96,97],"my shopping helper","my","helper","shopping",{"skillNo":99,"name":100,"nameZh":6,"description":6,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":101,"categories":102,"keywords":103,"publishedAt":52},"01M70FMGA74PSF54WDPJ6DW74F","self-upgrade","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbrownfield\u002Fmode-b\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fself-upgrade\u002FSKILL.md",[],[104,105,106],"self upgrade","self","upgrade",{"skillNo":108,"name":109,"nameZh":6,"description":6,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":110,"categories":111,"keywords":112,"publishedAt":52},"01M70FMFER555AGCQMMABCGVP4","self-archive","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbrownfield\u002Fmode-b\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fself-archive\u002FSKILL.md",[],[113,114,105],"archive","self archive",{"skillNo":116,"name":117,"nameZh":6,"description":6,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":118,"categories":119,"keywords":120,"publishedAt":52},"01M70FMEKRATA5GX89TW5GTB62","self-apply","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbrownfield\u002Fmode-b\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fself-apply\u002FSKILL.md",[],[121,122,105],"self apply","apply",{"skillNo":124,"name":125,"nameZh":6,"description":6,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":126,"categories":127,"keywords":128,"publishedAt":52},"01M70FMDB1Z8JDVC1645B4PJFP","pull-updates","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbrownfield\u002Fmode-b\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fpull-updates\u002FSKILL.md",[],[129,130,131],"pull updates","updates","pull",{"skillNo":133,"name":134,"nameZh":6,"description":6,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":135,"categories":136,"keywords":140,"publishedAt":52},"01M70FMCEMGNPHHRDPH3DXAYSW","email-drafting","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fjmlozano1990\u002FCowork-Starter-Kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbrownfield\u002Fmode-b\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Femail-drafting\u002FSKILL.md",[137],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000005","邮件与沟通",[141,142,143],"email","drafting","email drafting"]