[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M70FN2PGS97Q38VP217AM0G1":3,"skill-same:01M70FN2PGS97Q38VP217AM0G1":66},{"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":18,"publishedAt":39,"linkOnly":40,"markdownContent":41,"markdownBody":42,"frontMatter":43,"refName":44,"commitSha":45,"skillDirectory":46,"forksCount":47,"repositoryHtmlUrl":48,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":49,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":50,"updatedAt":51,"install":52,"resources":65},"01M70FN2PGS97Q38VP217AM0G1","benchmark-methodology",null,"Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client tension) with 1-5 evidence-anchored rubrics and a tension 2x2 plot. Use when benchmarking or scoring competitors, building a competitive comparison matrix, or grading rival positioning before assembling the report; runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure.","mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills","mdnaimul22","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F64520358?v=4","01M70FH95MH2H796Q01TYSFZ03","Naimul","01M70FH96798CQR4YHA13F17GA",3,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Faffaan-m_ECC\u002Fbenchmark-methodology\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38],"benchmark","methodology","benchmark methodology","platform","evidence","competitive","competitors","grading","matrix","craft","benchmarking","structure","leadership","dimensions","scoring","analysis","when","positioning","packaging","SET","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: benchmark-methodology\ndescription: \"Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client tension) with 1-5 evidence-anchored rubrics and a tension 2x2 plot. Use when benchmarking or scoring competitors, building a competitive comparison matrix, or grading rival positioning before assembling the report; runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before 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":15,"description":7},"main","74715deacdc69119d739f38916f8ee4f0f979ebf","skills\u002Fstorage\u002Faffaan-m_ECC\u002Fbenchmark-methodology",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22","AI Agents Workflows Automation | Specializing in Python, FastAPI, MCP Agents & Custom ERP.","2026-11-11 21:16:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":53,"prompt":63,"zipAvailable":64},[54,57,60],{"tool":55,"command":56},"npx","npx skills add mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills --skill benchmark-methodology",{"tool":58,"command":59},"bunx","bunx skills add mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills --skill benchmark-methodology",{"tool":61,"command":62},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills --skill benchmark-methodology","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Faffaan-m_ECC\u002Fbenchmark-methodology\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[67,75,106,128,146,161],{"skillNo":68,"name":69,"nameZh":6,"description":70,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":71,"categories":72,"keywords":73,"publishedAt":74},"01M72JT3YP1SQHD0MANGDXQ4RT","higgsfield-websites","Build, edit, and deploy full-stack websites, apps and games via the Higgsfield CLI (`higgsfield website …`). Each is a React 19 + TanStack Start SSR app in one Cloudflare Worker (D1\u002FR2\u002FKV\u002FDO\u002FContainers). THREE product types, picked via `--type` on create: `website` (standalone, no Higgsfield integration — references\u002Fwebsite-flow.md), `app` (Sign in with Higgsfield + fnf SDK, Quanta — references\u002Fapp-flow.md), `game` (realtime multiplayer rooms — references\u002Fgame-flow.md). Routes to the right flow; each carries its own rules and deploy\u002Fpublish gates.\nUse when: \"build me a website\", \"make a landing page\", \"create a web app\", \"build a SaaS dashboard \u002F portfolio\", \"make me a game\", \"deploy this site\", \"publish\". Also owns GAME ART: \"make a spritesheet\", \"tileable texture\", \"animate a 3D character\", game music\u002FSFX — see the game-* references.\nNOT for: single image\u002Fvideo\u002Faudio generation (higgsfield-generate), product photos (higgsfield-product-photoshoot), marketplace cards (higgsfield-marketplace-cards).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fhiggsfield-ai_skills\u002Fhiggsfield-websites\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-10 22:39:42",{"skillNo":76,"name":77,"nameZh":6,"description":78,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":79,"categories":80,"keywords":97,"publishedAt":39},"01M70JPK8HAXXA85P7Q8NKZZYG","writing-skills","Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fwriting-skills\u002FSKILL.md",[81,86,91,94],{"categoryNo":82,"categoryName":83,"taxonomyType":84,"taxonomyTypeDesc":85},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":87,"categoryName":88,"taxonomyType":89,"taxonomyTypeDesc":90},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":92,"categoryName":93,"taxonomyType":84,"taxonomyTypeDesc":85},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":95,"categoryName":96,"taxonomyType":84,"taxonomyTypeDesc":85},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",[98,99,100,101,102,103,104,35,105],"writing","writing skills","editing","deployment","use","Existing","new","work",{"skillNo":107,"name":108,"nameZh":6,"description":109,"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":117,"publishedAt":39},"01M70JP4PHBH1CQVVDWZ94W159","writing-plans","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[112,113,114],{"categoryNo":82,"categoryName":83,"taxonomyType":84,"taxonomyTypeDesc":85},{"categoryNo":87,"categoryName":88,"taxonomyType":89,"taxonomyTypeDesc":90},{"categoryNo":115,"categoryName":116,"taxonomyType":89,"taxonomyTypeDesc":90},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师",[98,118,119,120,35,121,122,102,123,124,125,126,127],"writing plans","plans","you","code","for","requirements","task","multi","spec","multi-step task",{"skillNo":129,"name":130,"nameZh":6,"description":131,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":132,"categories":133,"keywords":134,"publishedAt":39},"01M70JNTYVGXFZT8PASZ844TH8","verification-before-completion","Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fverification-before-completion\u002FSKILL.md",[],[135,136,137,138,139,140,102,141,23,142,35,143,105,144,145],"verification","verification before completion","complete","about","output","assertions","prs","claim","claims","commands","running",{"skillNo":147,"name":148,"nameZh":6,"description":149,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":150,"categories":151,"keywords":153,"publishedAt":39},"01M70JNGVSQDESWN0Q5BPJ875V","using-superpowers","Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring skill invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fusing-superpowers\u002FSKILL.md",[152],{"categoryNo":92,"categoryName":93,"taxonomyType":84,"taxonomyTypeDesc":85},[154,155,156,157,102,35,158,159,160],"using superpowers","superpowers","conversation","how to","how","find","questions",{"skillNo":162,"name":163,"nameZh":6,"description":164,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":165,"categories":166,"keywords":167,"publishedAt":39},"01M70JN57CE588NPYPYTWH1DWG","using-git-worktrees","Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fusing-git-worktrees\u002FSKILL.md",[],[168,169,170,171,172,173,35,105,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,119,102,181,182],"using git worktrees","Using git","git","worktrees","git worktrees","implementation","git worktree","worktree","native","Tools","isolation","fallback","feature","via","workspace"]