[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AF85P9HVGKKKFAA3MQG9F5":3,"skill-same:01M6AF85P9HVGKKKFAA3MQG9F5":83},{"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":44,"linkOnly":45,"markdownContent":46,"markdownBody":47,"frontMatter":48,"refName":49,"commitSha":50,"skillDirectory":51,"forksCount":52,"repositoryHtmlUrl":53,"repositoryHomepageUrl":54,"ownerHtmlUrl":55,"ownerBlogUrl":56,"ownerDescription":57,"updatedAt":58,"install":59,"resources":72},"01M6AF85P9HVGKKKFAA3MQG9F5","requirements-clarity",null,"Clarify ambiguous requirements through focused dialogue before implementation. Use when requirements are unclear, features are complex (>2 days), or involve cross-team coordination. Ask two core questions - Why? (YAGNI check) and Simpler? (KISS check) - to ensure clarity before coding.","davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates","davila7","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F6216945?v=4","01M6ADEWWFPS191NFM0Y1EX1JH","Daniel Avila","01M6ADJHGM78PHQRD3XZTFDVKK",33286,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Frequirements-clarity\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000031","产品经理","PROFESSION","适用职业",[24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43],"requirements clarity","clarity","requirements","ambiguous","core","when","kiss","features","questions","team coordination","dialogue","implementation","yagni","use","ask","check","clarify","coordination","why","team","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: requirements-clarity\ndescription: Clarify ambiguous requirements through focused dialogue before implementation. Use when requirements are unclear, features are complex (>2 days), or involve cross-team coordination. Ask two core questions - Why? (YAGNI check) and Simpler? (KISS check) - to ensure clarity before coding.\n---\n\n# Requirements Clarity Skill\n\n## Description\n\nAutomatically transforms vague requirements into actionable PRDs through systematic clarification with a 100-point scoring system.\n\n\n## Instructions\n\nWhen invoked, detect vague requirements:\n\n1. **Vague Feature Requests**\n   - User says: \"add login feature\", \"implement payment\", \"create dashboard\"\n   - Missing: How, with what technology, what constraints?\n\n2. **Missing Technical Context**\n   - No technology stack mentioned\n   - No integration points identified\n   - No performance\u002Fsecurity constraints\n\n3. **Incomplete Specifications**\n   - No acceptance criteria\n   - No success metrics\n   - No edge cases considered\n   - No error handling mentioned\n\n4. **Ambiguous Scope**\n   - Unclear boundaries (\"user management\" - what exactly?)\n   - No distinction between MVP and future enhancements\n   - Missing \"what's NOT included\"\n\n**Do NOT activate when**:\n- Specific file paths mentioned (e.g., \"auth.go:45\")\n- Code snippets included\n- Existing functions\u002Fclasses referenced\n- Bug fixes with clear reproduction steps\n\n## Core Principles\n\n1. **Systematic Questioning**\n   - Ask focused, specific questions\n   - One category at a time (2-3 questions per round)\n   - Build on previous answers\n   - Avoid overwhelming users\n\n2. **Quality-Driven Iteration**\n   - Continuously assess clarity score (0-100)\n   - Identify gaps systematically\n   - Iterate until ≥ 90 points\n   - Document all clarification rounds\n\n3. **Actionable Output**\n   - Generate concrete specifications\n   - Include measurable acceptance criteria\n   - Provide executable phases\n   - Enable direct implementation\n\n## Clarification Process\n\n### Step 1: Initial Requirement Analysis\n\n**Input**: User's requirement description\n\n**Tasks**:\n1. Parse and understand core requirement\n2. Generate feature name (kebab-case format)\n3. Determine document version (default `1.0` unless user specifies otherwise)\n4. Ensure `.\u002Fdocs\u002Fprds\u002F` exists for PRD output\n5. Perform initial clarity assessment (0-100)\n\n**Assessment Rubric**:\n```\nFunctional Clarity: \u002F30 points\n- Clear inputs\u002Foutputs: 10 pts\n- User interaction defined: 10 pts\n- Success criteria stated: 10 pts\n\nTechnical Specificity: \u002F25 points\n- Technology stack mentioned: 8 pts\n- Integration points identified: 8 pts\n- Constraints specified: 9 pts\n\nImplementation Completeness: \u002F25 points\n- Edge cases considered: 8 pts\n- Error handling mentioned: 9 pts\n- Data validation specified: 8 pts\n\nBusiness Context: \u002F20 points\n- Problem statement clear: 7 pts\n- Target users identified: 7 pts\n- Success metrics defined: 6 pts\n```\n\n**Initial Response Format**:\n```markdown\nI understand your requirement. Let me help you refine this specification.\n\n**Current Clarity Score**: X\u002F100\n\n**Clear Aspects**:\n- [List what's clear]\n\n**Needs Clarification**:\n- [List gaps]\n\nLet me systematically clarify these points...\n```\n\n### Step 2: Gap Analysis\n\nIdentify missing information across four dimensions:\n\n**1. Functional Scope**\n- What is the core functionality?\n- What are the boundaries?\n- What is out of scope?\n- What are edge cases?\n\n**2. User Interaction**\n- How do users interact?\n- What are the inputs?\n- What are the outputs?\n- What are success\u002Ffailure scenarios?\n\n**3. Technical Constraints**\n- Performance requirements?\n- Compatibility requirements?\n- Security considerations?\n- Scalability needs?\n\n**4. Business Value**\n- What problem does this solve?\n- Who are the target users?\n- What are success metrics?\n- What is the priority?\n\n### Step 3: Interactive Clarification\n\n**Question Strategy**:\n1. Start with highest-impact gaps\n2. Ask 2-3 questions per round\n3. Build context progressively\n4. Use user's language\n5. Provide examples when helpful\n\n**Question Format**:\n```markdown\nI need to clarify the following points to complete the requirements document:\n\n1. **[Category]**: [Specific question]?\n   - For example: [Example if helpful]\n\n2. **[Category]**: [Specific question]?\n\n3. **[Category]**: [Specific question]?\n\nPlease provide your answers, and I'll continue refining the PRD.\n```\n\n**After Each User Response**:\n1. Update clarity score\n2. Capture new information in the working PRD outline\n3. Identify remaining gaps\n4. If score \u003C 90: Continue with next round of questions\n5. If score ≥ 90: Proceed to PRD generation\n\n**Score Update Format**:\n```markdown\nThank you for the additional information!\n\n**Clarity Score Update**: X\u002F100 → Y\u002F100\n\n**New Clarified Content**:\n- [Summarize new information]\n\n**Remaining Points to Clarify**:\n- [List remaining gaps if score \u003C 90]\n\n[If score \u003C 90: Continue with next round of questions]\n[If score ≥ 90: \"Perfect! I will now generate the complete PRD document...\"]\n```\n\n### Step 4: PRD Generation\n\nOnce clarity score ≥ 90, generate comprehensive PRD.\n\n**Output File**:\n\n1. **Final PRD**: `.\u002Fdocs\u002Fprds\u002F{feature_name}-v{version}-prd.md`\n\nUse the `Write` tool to create or update this file. Derive `{version}` from the document version recorded in the PRD (default `1.0`).\n\n## PRD Document Structure\n\n```markdown\n# {Feature Name} - Product Requirements Document (PRD)\n\n## Requirements Description\n\n### Background\n- **Business Problem**: [Describe the business problem to solve]\n- **Target Users**: [Target user groups]\n- **Value Proposition**: [Value this feature brings]\n\n### Feature Overview\n- **Core Features**: [List of main features]\n- **Feature Boundaries**: [What is and isn't included]\n- **User Scenarios**: [Typical usage scenarios]\n\n### Detailed Requirements\n- **Input\u002FOutput**: [Specific input\u002Foutput specifications]\n- **User Interaction**: [User operation flow]\n- **Data Requirements**: [Data structures and validation rules]\n- **Edge Cases**: [Edge case handling]\n\n## Design Decisions\n\n### Technical Approach\n- **Architecture Choice**: [Technical architecture decisions and rationale]\n- **Key Components**: [List of main technical components]\n- **Data Storage**: [Data models and storage solutions]\n- **Interface Design**: [API\u002Finterface specifications]\n\n### Constraints\n- **Performance Requirements**: [Response time, throughput, etc.]\n- **Compatibility**: [System compatibility requirements]\n- **Security**: [Security considerations]\n- **Scalability**: [Future expansion considerations]\n\n### Risk Assessment\n- **Technical Risks**: [Potential technical risks and mitigation plans]\n- **Dependency Risks**: [External dependencies and alternatives]\n- **Schedule Risks**: [Timeline risks and response strategies]\n\n## Acceptance Criteria\n\n### Functional Acceptance\n- [ ] Feature 1: [Specific acceptance conditions]\n- [ ] Feature 2: [Specific acceptance conditions]\n- [ ] Feature 3: [Specific acceptance conditions]\n\n### Quality Standards\n- [ ] Code Quality: [Code standards and review requirements]\n- [ ] Test Coverage: [Testing requirements and coverage]\n- [ ] Performance Metrics: [Performance test pass criteria]\n- [ ] Security Review: [Security review requirements]\n\n### User Acceptance\n- [ ] User Experience: [UX acceptance criteria]\n- [ ] Documentation: [Documentation delivery requirements]\n- [ ] Training Materials: [If needed, training material requirements]\n\n## Execution Phases\n\n### Phase 1: Preparation\n**Goal**: Environment preparation and technical validation\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n### Phase 2: Core Development\n**Goal**: Implement core functionality\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n### Phase 3: Integration & Testing\n**Goal**: Integration and quality assurance\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n### Phase 4: Deployment\n**Goal**: Release and monitoring\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n---\n\n**Document Version**: 1.0\n**Created**: {timestamp}\n**Clarification Rounds**: {clarification_rounds}\n**Quality Score**: {quality_score}\u002F100\n```\n\n## Behavioral Guidelines\n\n### DO\n- Ask specific, targeted questions\n- Build on previous answers\n- Provide examples to guide users\n- Maintain conversational tone\n- Summarize clarification rounds within the PRD\n- Use clear, professional English\n- Generate concrete specifications\n- Stay in clarification mode until score ≥ 90\n\n### DON'T\n- Ask all questions at once\n- Make assumptions without confirmation\n- Generate PRD before 90+ score\n- Skip any required sections\n- Use vague or abstract language\n- Proceed without user responses\n- Exit skill mode prematurely\n\n## Success Criteria\n\n- Clarity score ≥ 90\u002F100\n- All PRD sections complete with substance\n- Acceptance criteria checklistable (using `- [ ]` format)\n- Execution phases actionable with concrete tasks\n- User approves final PRD\n- Ready for development handoff\n","# Requirements Clarity Skill\n\n## Description\n\nAutomatically transforms vague requirements into actionable PRDs through systematic clarification with a 100-point scoring system.\n\n\n## Instructions\n\nWhen invoked, detect vague requirements:\n\n1. **Vague Feature Requests**\n   - User says: \"add login feature\", \"implement payment\", \"create dashboard\"\n   - Missing: How, with what technology, what constraints?\n\n2. **Missing Technical Context**\n   - No technology stack mentioned\n   - No integration points identified\n   - No performance\u002Fsecurity constraints\n\n3. **Incomplete Specifications**\n   - No acceptance criteria\n   - No success metrics\n   - No edge cases considered\n   - No error handling mentioned\n\n4. **Ambiguous Scope**\n   - Unclear boundaries (\"user management\" - what exactly?)\n   - No distinction between MVP and future enhancements\n   - Missing \"what's NOT included\"\n\n**Do NOT activate when**:\n- Specific file paths mentioned (e.g., \"auth.go:45\")\n- Code snippets included\n- Existing functions\u002Fclasses referenced\n- Bug fixes with clear reproduction steps\n\n## Core Principles\n\n1. **Systematic Questioning**\n   - Ask focused, specific questions\n   - One category at a time (2-3 questions per round)\n   - Build on previous answers\n   - Avoid overwhelming users\n\n2. **Quality-Driven Iteration**\n   - Continuously assess clarity score (0-100)\n   - Identify gaps systematically\n   - Iterate until ≥ 90 points\n   - Document all clarification rounds\n\n3. **Actionable Output**\n   - Generate concrete specifications\n   - Include measurable acceptance criteria\n   - Provide executable phases\n   - Enable direct implementation\n\n## Clarification Process\n\n### Step 1: Initial Requirement Analysis\n\n**Input**: User's requirement description\n\n**Tasks**:\n1. Parse and understand core requirement\n2. Generate feature name (kebab-case format)\n3. Determine document version (default `1.0` unless user specifies otherwise)\n4. Ensure `.\u002Fdocs\u002Fprds\u002F` exists for PRD output\n5. Perform initial clarity assessment (0-100)\n\n**Assessment Rubric**:\n```\nFunctional Clarity: \u002F30 points\n- Clear inputs\u002Foutputs: 10 pts\n- User interaction defined: 10 pts\n- Success criteria stated: 10 pts\n\nTechnical Specificity: \u002F25 points\n- Technology stack mentioned: 8 pts\n- Integration points identified: 8 pts\n- Constraints specified: 9 pts\n\nImplementation Completeness: \u002F25 points\n- Edge cases considered: 8 pts\n- Error handling mentioned: 9 pts\n- Data validation specified: 8 pts\n\nBusiness Context: \u002F20 points\n- Problem statement clear: 7 pts\n- Target users identified: 7 pts\n- Success metrics defined: 6 pts\n```\n\n**Initial Response Format**:\n```markdown\nI understand your requirement. Let me help you refine this specification.\n\n**Current Clarity Score**: X\u002F100\n\n**Clear Aspects**:\n- [List what's clear]\n\n**Needs Clarification**:\n- [List gaps]\n\nLet me systematically clarify these points...\n```\n\n### Step 2: Gap Analysis\n\nIdentify missing information across four dimensions:\n\n**1. Functional Scope**\n- What is the core functionality?\n- What are the boundaries?\n- What is out of scope?\n- What are edge cases?\n\n**2. User Interaction**\n- How do users interact?\n- What are the inputs?\n- What are the outputs?\n- What are success\u002Ffailure scenarios?\n\n**3. Technical Constraints**\n- Performance requirements?\n- Compatibility requirements?\n- Security considerations?\n- Scalability needs?\n\n**4. Business Value**\n- What problem does this solve?\n- Who are the target users?\n- What are success metrics?\n- What is the priority?\n\n### Step 3: Interactive Clarification\n\n**Question Strategy**:\n1. Start with highest-impact gaps\n2. Ask 2-3 questions per round\n3. Build context progressively\n4. Use user's language\n5. Provide examples when helpful\n\n**Question Format**:\n```markdown\nI need to clarify the following points to complete the requirements document:\n\n1. **[Category]**: [Specific question]?\n   - For example: [Example if helpful]\n\n2. **[Category]**: [Specific question]?\n\n3. **[Category]**: [Specific question]?\n\nPlease provide your answers, and I'll continue refining the PRD.\n```\n\n**After Each User Response**:\n1. Update clarity score\n2. Capture new information in the working PRD outline\n3. Identify remaining gaps\n4. If score \u003C 90: Continue with next round of questions\n5. If score ≥ 90: Proceed to PRD generation\n\n**Score Update Format**:\n```markdown\nThank you for the additional information!\n\n**Clarity Score Update**: X\u002F100 → Y\u002F100\n\n**New Clarified Content**:\n- [Summarize new information]\n\n**Remaining Points to Clarify**:\n- [List remaining gaps if score \u003C 90]\n\n[If score \u003C 90: Continue with next round of questions]\n[If score ≥ 90: \"Perfect! I will now generate the complete PRD document...\"]\n```\n\n### Step 4: PRD Generation\n\nOnce clarity score ≥ 90, generate comprehensive PRD.\n\n**Output File**:\n\n1. **Final PRD**: `.\u002Fdocs\u002Fprds\u002F{feature_name}-v{version}-prd.md`\n\nUse the `Write` tool to create or update this file. Derive `{version}` from the document version recorded in the PRD (default `1.0`).\n\n## PRD Document Structure\n\n```markdown\n# {Feature Name} - Product Requirements Document (PRD)\n\n## Requirements Description\n\n### Background\n- **Business Problem**: [Describe the business problem to solve]\n- **Target Users**: [Target user groups]\n- **Value Proposition**: [Value this feature brings]\n\n### Feature Overview\n- **Core Features**: [List of main features]\n- **Feature Boundaries**: [What is and isn't included]\n- **User Scenarios**: [Typical usage scenarios]\n\n### Detailed Requirements\n- **Input\u002FOutput**: [Specific input\u002Foutput specifications]\n- **User Interaction**: [User operation flow]\n- **Data Requirements**: [Data structures and validation rules]\n- **Edge Cases**: [Edge case handling]\n\n## Design Decisions\n\n### Technical Approach\n- **Architecture Choice**: [Technical architecture decisions and rationale]\n- **Key Components**: [List of main technical components]\n- **Data Storage**: [Data models and storage solutions]\n- **Interface Design**: [API\u002Finterface specifications]\n\n### Constraints\n- **Performance Requirements**: [Response time, throughput, etc.]\n- **Compatibility**: [System compatibility requirements]\n- **Security**: [Security considerations]\n- **Scalability**: [Future expansion considerations]\n\n### Risk Assessment\n- **Technical Risks**: [Potential technical risks and mitigation plans]\n- **Dependency Risks**: [External dependencies and alternatives]\n- **Schedule Risks**: [Timeline risks and response strategies]\n\n## Acceptance Criteria\n\n### Functional Acceptance\n- [ ] Feature 1: [Specific acceptance conditions]\n- [ ] Feature 2: [Specific acceptance conditions]\n- [ ] Feature 3: [Specific acceptance conditions]\n\n### Quality Standards\n- [ ] Code Quality: [Code standards and review requirements]\n- [ ] Test Coverage: [Testing requirements and coverage]\n- [ ] Performance Metrics: [Performance test pass criteria]\n- [ ] Security Review: [Security review requirements]\n\n### User Acceptance\n- [ ] User Experience: [UX acceptance criteria]\n- [ ] Documentation: [Documentation delivery requirements]\n- [ ] Training Materials: [If needed, training material requirements]\n\n## Execution Phases\n\n### Phase 1: Preparation\n**Goal**: Environment preparation and technical validation\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n### Phase 2: Core Development\n**Goal**: Implement core functionality\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n### Phase 3: Integration & Testing\n**Goal**: Integration and quality assurance\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n### Phase 4: Deployment\n**Goal**: Release and monitoring\n- [ ] Task 1: [Specific task description]\n- [ ] Task 2: [Specific task description]\n- **Deliverables**: [Phase deliverables]\n- **Time**: [Estimated time]\n\n---\n\n**Document Version**: 1.0\n**Created**: {timestamp}\n**Clarification Rounds**: {clarification_rounds}\n**Quality Score**: {quality_score}\u002F100\n```\n\n## Behavioral Guidelines\n\n### DO\n- Ask specific, targeted questions\n- Build on previous answers\n- Provide examples to guide users\n- Maintain conversational tone\n- Summarize clarification rounds within the PRD\n- Use clear, professional English\n- Generate concrete specifications\n- Stay in clarification mode until score ≥ 90\n\n### DON'T\n- Ask all questions at once\n- Make assumptions without confirmation\n- Generate PRD before 90+ score\n- Skip any required sections\n- Use vague or abstract language\n- Proceed without user responses\n- Exit skill mode prematurely\n\n## Success Criteria\n\n- Clarity score ≥ 90\u002F100\n- All PRD sections complete with substance\n- Acceptance criteria checklistable (using `- [ ]` format)\n- Execution phases actionable with concrete tasks\n- User approves final PRD\n- Ready for development handoff\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","2b749c82b5d11fac39d9a6e021ce3f5b8a541bd1","cli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Frequirements-clarity",3909,"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","2026-11-11 11:53:30",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":60,"prompt":70,"zipAvailable":71},[61,64,67],{"tool":62,"command":63},"npx","npx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill requirements-clarity",{"tool":65,"command":66},"bunx","bunx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill requirements-clarity",{"tool":68,"command":69},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add davila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates --skill requirements-clarity","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Frequirements-clarity\u002FSKILL.md",true,[73,79],{"path":74,"resourceType":75,"resourceTypeDesc":76,"sizeBytes":77,"sourceHtmlUrl":78},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",140,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ffderuiter\u002FQRCraftly-web\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-fragments\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",{"path":80,"resourceType":75,"resourceTypeDesc":76,"sizeBytes":81,"sourceHtmlUrl":82},"README.md",9297,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fdavila7\u002Fclaude-code-templates\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcli-tool\u002Fcomponents\u002Fskills\u002Fproductivity\u002Frequirements-clarity\u002FREADME.md",[84,114,141,172,207,231],{"skillNo":85,"name":86,"nameZh":6,"description":87,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":88,"categories":89,"keywords":95,"publishedAt":44},"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",[90],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,37,29,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113],"scoring","pool","wealthville pool scoring","liquidity","which","for","exit","now","reduce","with","record","track","verdict","evm","solana","how","public","look",{"skillNo":115,"name":116,"nameZh":6,"description":117,"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":121,"publishedAt":44},"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",[120],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},[122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,29,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140],"technical debt","debt","technical","technical debt auditor","auditor","coverage","complexity","markers","project","cleanup","unused","code","todo","work","plan","focus","signals","audit","dependency",{"skillNo":142,"name":143,"nameZh":6,"description":144,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":145,"categories":146,"keywords":154,"publishedAt":44},"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",[147,150,151],{"categoryNo":148,"categoryName":149,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000010","后端与接口",{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},{"categoryNo":152,"categoryName":153,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000033","数据分析师",[155,156,157,158,159,160,161,101,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,37,169,170,29,171],"readonly","guard","sql guard","sql","readonly sql guard","erp","effect","read-only","db","just","tool","calls","only","MCP","access","database","query",{"skillNo":173,"name":174,"nameZh":6,"description":175,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":176,"licenseFileUrl":177,"sourceHtmlUrl":178,"categories":179,"keywords":183,"publishedAt":44},"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",[180],{"categoryNo":181,"categoryName":182,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",[184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,101,206],"artifacts builder","web","web artifacts builder","artifacts","builder","state","routing","state management","component","css","frontend","ui","Tools","file","components","shadcn","react","Tailwind","suite","jsx","html","single-file","ui components",{"skillNo":208,"name":209,"nameZh":6,"description":210,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":176,"licenseFileUrl":211,"sourceHtmlUrl":212,"categories":213,"keywords":218,"publishedAt":44},"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",[214,217],{"categoryNo":215,"categoryName":216,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":181,"categoryName":182,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},[219,220,221,222,223,185,224,194,195,225,226,227,228,101,229,105,230],"webapp testing","testing","webapp","browser","playwright","applications","debugging","toolkit","logs","screenshots","local","behavior",{"skillNo":232,"name":233,"nameZh":6,"description":234,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":176,"licenseFileUrl":235,"sourceHtmlUrl":236,"categories":237,"keywords":245,"publishedAt":44},"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",[238,241,242],{"categoryNo":239,"categoryName":240,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},{"categoryNo":243,"categoryName":244,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,187,254,197,133,255,256,257,258,259,167,260,29,261,262,263,264,265,111,266],"discernment nudge","nudge","interpretation","help","run","reasoning","data","writing","lookup","content","review","conversation","short","up","invoke","you","analysis","claims","argument","assemble","recommendations"]