[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6ADN99Z41CC1VEQ8GWA5SSG":3,"skill-same:01M6ADN99Z41CC1VEQ8GWA5SSG":69},{"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":23,"publishedAt":34,"linkOnly":35,"markdownContent":36,"markdownBody":37,"frontMatter":38,"refName":39,"commitSha":40,"skillDirectory":41,"forksCount":42,"repositoryHtmlUrl":43,"repositoryHomepageUrl":44,"ownerHtmlUrl":45,"ownerBlogUrl":46,"ownerDescription":47,"updatedAt":48,"install":49,"resources":62},"01M6ADN99Z41CC1VEQ8GWA5SSG","dispatching-parallel-agents",null,"Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies","davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates","davila7","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F6216945?v=4","01M6ADEWWFPS191NFM0Y1EX1JH","Daniel Avila","01M6ADJHGM78PHQRD3XZTFDVKK",33481,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fai-research\u002Fdispatching-parallel-agents\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33],"dispatching parallel agents","parallel agents","parallel","tasks","state","use","dependencies","shared","can","when","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: dispatching-parallel-agents\ndescription: Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies\n---\n\n# Dispatching Parallel Agents\n\n## Overview\n\nWhen you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.\n\n**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently.\n\n## When to Use\n\n```dot\ndigraph when_to_use {\n    \"Multiple failures?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Are they independent?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Single agent investigates all\" [shape=box];\n    \"One agent per problem domain\" [shape=box];\n    \"Can they work in parallel?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Sequential agents\" [shape=box];\n    \"Parallel dispatch\" [shape=box];\n\n    \"Multiple failures?\" -> \"Are they independent?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Are they independent?\" -> \"Single agent investigates all\" [label=\"no - related\"];\n    \"Are they independent?\" -> \"Can they work in parallel?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Can they work in parallel?\" -> \"Parallel dispatch\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Can they work in parallel?\" -> \"Sequential agents\" [label=\"no - shared state\"];\n}\n```\n\n**Use when:**\n- 3+ test files failing with different root causes\n- Multiple subsystems broken independently\n- Each problem can be understood without context from others\n- No shared state between investigations\n\n**Don't use when:**\n- Failures are related (fix one might fix others)\n- Need to understand full system state\n- Agents would interfere with each other\n\n## The Pattern\n\n### 1. Identify Independent Domains\n\nGroup failures by what's broken:\n- File A tests: Tool approval flow\n- File B tests: Batch completion behavior\n- File C tests: Abort functionality\n\nEach domain is independent - fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests.\n\n### 2. Create Focused Agent Tasks\n\nEach agent gets:\n- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem\n- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass\n- **Constraints:** Don't change other code\n- **Expected output:** Summary of what you found and fixed\n\n### 3. Dispatch in Parallel\n\n```typescript\n\u002F\u002F In Claude Code \u002F AI environment\nTask(\"Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures\")\nTask(\"Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures\")\nTask(\"Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures\")\n\u002F\u002F All three run concurrently\n```\n\n### 4. Review and Integrate\n\nWhen agents return:\n- Read each summary\n- Verify fixes don't conflict\n- Run full test suite\n- Integrate all changes\n\n## Agent Prompt Structure\n\nGood agent prompts are:\n1. **Focused** - One clear problem domain\n2. **Self-contained** - All context needed to understand the problem\n3. **Specific about output** - What should the agent return?\n\n```markdown\nFix the 3 failing tests in src\u002Fagents\u002Fagent-tool-abort.test.ts:\n\n1. \"should abort tool with partial output capture\" - expects 'interrupted at' in message\n2. \"should handle mixed completed and aborted tools\" - fast tool aborted instead of completed\n3. \"should properly track pendingToolCount\" - expects 3 results but gets 0\n\nThese are timing\u002Frace condition issues. Your task:\n\n1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies\n2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?\n3. Fix by:\n   - Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting\n   - Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found\n   - Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior\n\nDo NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.\n\nReturn: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.\n```\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n**❌ Too broad:** \"Fix all the tests\" - agent gets lost\n**✅ Specific:** \"Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts\" - focused scope\n\n**❌ No context:** \"Fix the race condition\" - agent doesn't know where\n**✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names\n\n**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything\n**✅ Constraints:** \"Do NOT change production code\" or \"Fix tests only\"\n\n**❌ Vague output:** \"Fix it\" - you don't know what changed\n**✅ Specific:** \"Return summary of root cause and changes\"\n\n## When NOT to Use\n\n**Related failures:** Fixing one might fix others - investigate together first\n**Need full context:** Understanding requires seeing entire system\n**Exploratory debugging:** You don't know what's broken yet\n**Shared state:** Agents would interfere (editing same files, using same resources)\n\n## Real Example from Session\n\n**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring\n\n**Failures:**\n- agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)\n- batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)\n- tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)\n\n**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions\n\n**Dispatch:**\n```\nAgent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts\nAgent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts\nAgent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts\n```\n\n**Results:**\n- Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting\n- Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)\n- Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete\n\n**Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green\n\n**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially\n\n## Key Benefits\n\n1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously\n2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track\n3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other\n4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1\n\n## Verification\n\nAfter agents return:\n1. **Review each summary** - Understand what changed\n2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?\n3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together\n4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging session (2025-10-03):\n- 6 failures across 3 files\n- 3 agents dispatched in parallel\n- All investigations completed concurrently\n- All fixes integrated successfully\n- Zero conflicts between agent changes\n","# Dispatching Parallel Agents\n\n## Overview\n\nWhen you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.\n\n**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently.\n\n## When to Use\n\n```dot\ndigraph when_to_use {\n    \"Multiple failures?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Are they independent?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Single agent investigates all\" [shape=box];\n    \"One agent per problem domain\" [shape=box];\n    \"Can they work in parallel?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Sequential agents\" [shape=box];\n    \"Parallel dispatch\" [shape=box];\n\n    \"Multiple failures?\" -> \"Are they independent?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Are they independent?\" -> \"Single agent investigates all\" [label=\"no - related\"];\n    \"Are they independent?\" -> \"Can they work in parallel?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Can they work in parallel?\" -> \"Parallel dispatch\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Can they work in parallel?\" -> \"Sequential agents\" [label=\"no - shared state\"];\n}\n```\n\n**Use when:**\n- 3+ test files failing with different root causes\n- Multiple subsystems broken independently\n- Each problem can be understood without context from others\n- No shared state between investigations\n\n**Don't use when:**\n- Failures are related (fix one might fix others)\n- Need to understand full system state\n- Agents would interfere with each other\n\n## The Pattern\n\n### 1. Identify Independent Domains\n\nGroup failures by what's broken:\n- File A tests: Tool approval flow\n- File B tests: Batch completion behavior\n- File C tests: Abort functionality\n\nEach domain is independent - fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests.\n\n### 2. Create Focused Agent Tasks\n\nEach agent gets:\n- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem\n- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass\n- **Constraints:** Don't change other code\n- **Expected output:** Summary of what you found and fixed\n\n### 3. Dispatch in Parallel\n\n```typescript\n\u002F\u002F In Claude Code \u002F AI environment\nTask(\"Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures\")\nTask(\"Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures\")\nTask(\"Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures\")\n\u002F\u002F All three run concurrently\n```\n\n### 4. Review and Integrate\n\nWhen agents return:\n- Read each summary\n- Verify fixes don't conflict\n- Run full test suite\n- Integrate all changes\n\n## Agent Prompt Structure\n\nGood agent prompts are:\n1. **Focused** - One clear problem domain\n2. **Self-contained** - All context needed to understand the problem\n3. **Specific about output** - What should the agent return?\n\n```markdown\nFix the 3 failing tests in src\u002Fagents\u002Fagent-tool-abort.test.ts:\n\n1. \"should abort tool with partial output capture\" - expects 'interrupted at' in message\n2. \"should handle mixed completed and aborted tools\" - fast tool aborted instead of completed\n3. \"should properly track pendingToolCount\" - expects 3 results but gets 0\n\nThese are timing\u002Frace condition issues. Your task:\n\n1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies\n2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?\n3. Fix by:\n   - Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting\n   - Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found\n   - Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior\n\nDo NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.\n\nReturn: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.\n```\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n**❌ Too broad:** \"Fix all the tests\" - agent gets lost\n**✅ Specific:** \"Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts\" - focused scope\n\n**❌ No context:** \"Fix the race condition\" - agent doesn't know where\n**✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names\n\n**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything\n**✅ Constraints:** \"Do NOT change production code\" or \"Fix tests only\"\n\n**❌ Vague output:** \"Fix it\" - you don't know what changed\n**✅ Specific:** \"Return summary of root cause and changes\"\n\n## When NOT to Use\n\n**Related failures:** Fixing one might fix others - investigate together first\n**Need full context:** Understanding requires seeing entire system\n**Exploratory debugging:** You don't know what's broken yet\n**Shared state:** Agents would interfere (editing same files, using same resources)\n\n## Real Example from Session\n\n**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring\n\n**Failures:**\n- agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)\n- batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)\n- tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)\n\n**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions\n\n**Dispatch:**\n```\nAgent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts\nAgent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts\nAgent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts\n```\n\n**Results:**\n- Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting\n- Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)\n- Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete\n\n**Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green\n\n**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially\n\n## Key Benefits\n\n1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously\n2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track\n3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other\n4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1\n\n## Verification\n\nAfter agents return:\n1. **Review each summary** - Understand what changed\n2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?\n3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together\n4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging session (2025-10-03):\n- 6 failures across 3 files\n- 3 agents dispatched in parallel\n- All investigations completed concurrently\n- All fixes integrated successfully\n- Zero conflicts between agent changes\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","2b749c82b5d11fac39d9a6e021ce3f5b8a541bd1","cli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fai-research\u002Fdispatching-parallel-agents",3931,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates","https:\u002F\u002Faitmpl.com","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7","https:\u002F\u002Fdanielavila.me","Building AI dev tools with LLMs","2026-11-14 06:14:46",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":50,"prompt":60,"zipAvailable":61},[51,54,57],{"tool":52,"command":53},"npx","npx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill dispatching-parallel-agents",{"tool":55,"command":56},"bunx","bunx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill dispatching-parallel-agents",{"tool":58,"command":59},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill dispatching-parallel-agents","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fai-research\u002Fdispatching-parallel-agents\u002FSKILL.md",true,[63],{"path":64,"resourceType":65,"resourceTypeDesc":66,"sizeBytes":67,"sourceHtmlUrl":68},"scripts\u002Fhitl-loop.template.sh","SCRIPT","脚本",1164,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnodetool-ai\u002Fnodetool\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fdiagnosing-bugs\u002Fscripts\u002Fhitl-loop.template.sh",[70,96,123,156,190,214],{"skillNo":71,"name":72,"nameZh":6,"description":73,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":74,"categories":75,"keywords":77,"publishedAt":34},"01M70NHBTQ8BV0A2SCAZXEPHCX","wealthville-pool-scoring","Score DeFi liquidity pools before providing liquidity. Returns a 0-100 pool score and an Enter\u002FHold\u002FExit\u002FReduce\u002FAvoid verdict with calibrated confidence for ~68,800 Solana pools and 575 EVM pools, plus a public miss-inclusive track record. Use when asked whether a pool is worth LPing into, which pools look best right now, or how accurate the scores have actually been.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fweb-data\u002Fwealthville-pool-scoring\u002FSKILL.md",[76],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,29,33,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95],"scoring","pool","wealthville pool scoring","liquidity","which","for","exit","now","reduce","with","record","track","verdict","evm","solana","how","public","look",{"skillNo":97,"name":98,"nameZh":6,"description":99,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":100,"categories":101,"keywords":103,"publishedAt":34},"01M70MB6VR8ERJ4EM8D5KHBMEV","technical-debt-auditor","Scans a codebase and produces a quantified technical debt report with a prioritized remediation plan. Analyzes dead code, TODO\u002FFIXME\u002FHACK markers, dependency staleness, complexity hotspots, code duplication signals, test coverage gaps, unused exports, and outdated patterns. Use this skill when the user asks to audit their codebase for tech debt, wants a health check of their code quality, says things like \"where should I focus refactoring\", \"find code smells\", \"audit my codebase\", \"what technical debt do we have\", \"prioritize cleanup work\", or asks about code quality metrics. Also trigger when the user mentions \"code rot\", \"legacy cleanup\", \"refactoring priorities\", or wants to understand the overall health of a project before a major effort. Trigger even if the user doesn't say \"technical debt\" explicitly — any request to systematically assess code quality and identify improvement priorities belongs here.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdevelopment\u002Ftechnical-debt-auditor\u002FSKILL.md",[102],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,33,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122],"technical debt","debt","technical","technical debt auditor","auditor","coverage","complexity","markers","project","cleanup","unused","code","todo","work","plan","focus","signals","audit","dependency",{"skillNo":124,"name":125,"nameZh":6,"description":126,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":127,"categories":128,"keywords":138,"publishedAt":34},"01M70KPYH9QNHCNME5GJQGE22K","readonly-sql-guard","Make an agent's database access provably read-only. Use when an agent runs caller-supplied SQL against a production\u002FERP\u002Fanalytics database (a \"query\" MCP tool, text-to-SQL, an admin console), or when reviewing DB-access code for write\u002FDDL\u002Fside-effect\u002Ftransaction-escape risks. Checks what a statement CALLS, not just its shape.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fdatabase\u002Freadonly-sql-guard\u002FSKILL.md",[129,132,133],{"categoryNo":130,"categoryName":131,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000010","后端与接口",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":134,"categoryName":135,"taxonomyType":136,"taxonomyTypeDesc":137},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000033","数据分析师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[139,140,141,142,143,144,145,83,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,29,153,154,33,155],"readonly","guard","sql guard","sql","readonly sql guard","erp","effect","read-only","db","just","tool","calls","only","MCP","access","database","query",{"skillNo":157,"name":158,"nameZh":6,"description":159,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":160,"licenseFileUrl":161,"sourceHtmlUrl":162,"categories":163,"keywords":167,"publishedAt":34},"01M6AFY6F7CC2BBZP1QD6VTNVC","web-artifacts-builder","Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artifacts using modern frontend web technologies (React, Tailwind CSS, shadcn\u002Fui). Use for complex artifacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn\u002Fui components - not for simple single-file HTML\u002FJSX artifacts.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Futilities\u002Fweb-artifacts-builder\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Futilities\u002Fweb-artifacts-builder\u002FSKILL.md",[164],{"categoryNo":165,"categoryName":166,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",[168,169,170,171,172,28,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,83,189],"artifacts builder","web","web artifacts builder","artifacts","builder","routing","state management","component","css","frontend","ui","Tools","file","components","shadcn","react","Tailwind","suite","jsx","html","single-file","ui components",{"skillNo":191,"name":192,"nameZh":6,"description":193,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":160,"licenseFileUrl":194,"sourceHtmlUrl":195,"categories":196,"keywords":201,"publishedAt":34},"01M6AFWF33SFV9Z3SF4PEEE4BF","webapp-testing","Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fwebapp-testing\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fwebapp-testing\u002FSKILL.md",[197,200],{"categoryNo":198,"categoryName":199,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":165,"categoryName":166,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[202,203,204,205,206,169,207,177,178,208,209,210,211,83,212,87,213],"webapp testing","testing","webapp","browser","playwright","applications","debugging","toolkit","logs","screenshots","local","behavior",{"skillNo":215,"name":216,"nameZh":6,"description":217,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":160,"licenseFileUrl":218,"sourceHtmlUrl":219,"categories":220,"keywords":228,"publishedAt":34},"01M6AF67Q67JJJ5V51JR2P52KA","discernment-nudge","After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Fdiscernment-nudge\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Fdiscernment-nudge\u002FSKILL.md",[221,224,225],{"categoryNo":222,"categoryName":223,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":226,"categoryName":227,"taxonomyType":136,"taxonomyTypeDesc":137},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,171,237,180,115,238,239,240,241,242,151,243,33,244,245,246,247,248,93,249],"discernment nudge","nudge","interpretation","help","run","reasoning","data","writing","lookup","content","review","conversation","short","up","invoke","you","analysis","claims","argument","assemble","recommendations"]