[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6BV4TWWNWWX1TGTRCTD1VV4":3,"skill-same:01M6BV4TWWNWWX1TGTRCTD1VV4":82},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":51,"linkOnly":52,"markdownContent":53,"markdownBody":54,"frontMatter":55,"refName":56,"commitSha":57,"skillDirectory":58,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":59,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":60,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":61,"install":62,"resources":75},"01M6BV4TWWNWWX1TGTRCTD1VV4","code-review",null,"Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue\u002Fspec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\".","bnferguson\u002Fdotfiles","bnferguson","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F47749?v=4","01M6BV4H2TJKK8P14W86V1ZCPP","Brandon Ferguson","01M6BV4H7GJWTZJ1BVHQ1TX11Y",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fcode-review\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50],"review","code review","code","when","point","changes","for","reviews","progress","what the","reports","standards","use","repo","branch","work","parallel","coding standards","pr","merge","commit","spec","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: code-review\ndescription: \"Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue\u002Fspec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \\\"review since X\\\".\"\n---\n\nTwo-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:\n\n- **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?\n- **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue \u002F spec?\n\nBoth axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.\n\nThe issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `\u002Fsetup-matt-pocock-skills`.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Pin the fixed point\n\nWhatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it.\n\nCapture the diff command once: `git diff \u003Cfixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log \u003Cfixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.\n\nBefore going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse \u003Cfixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents.\n\n### 2. Identify the spec source\n\nLook for the originating spec, in this order:\n\n1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.), fetched via the workflow in `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md`.\n2. A path the user passed as an argument.\n3. A spec file under `docs\u002F`, `specs\u002F`, or `.scratch\u002F` matching the branch name or feature.\n4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report \"no spec available\".\n\n### 3. Identify the standards sources\n\nAnything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.\n\nOn top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:\n\n- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.\n- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic (\"possible Feature Envy\"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.\n\nEach smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:\n\n- **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.\n- **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.\n- **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.\n- **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.\n- **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.\n- **Repeated Switches**: the same `switch`\u002F`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.\n- **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.\n- **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.\n- **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.\n- **Message Chains**: long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.\n- **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.\n- **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.\n\n### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel\n\n**Standards sub-agent prompt** should include:\n\n- The full diff command and commit list.\n- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it).\n- The brief: \"Report, per file\u002Fhunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words.\"\n\n**Spec sub-agent prompt** should include:\n\n- The diff command and commit list.\n- The path or fetched contents of the spec.\n- The brief: \"Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words.\"\n\nIf the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.\n\n### 5. Aggregate\n\nPresent the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).\n\nEnd with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.\n\n## Why two axes\n\nA change can pass one axis and fail the other:\n\n- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**\n- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**\n\nReporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.\n","Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:\n\n- **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?\n- **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue \u002F spec?\n\nBoth axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.\n\nThe issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `\u002Fsetup-matt-pocock-skills`.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Pin the fixed point\n\nWhatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it.\n\nCapture the diff command once: `git diff \u003Cfixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log \u003Cfixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.\n\nBefore going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse \u003Cfixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents.\n\n### 2. Identify the spec source\n\nLook for the originating spec, in this order:\n\n1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.), fetched via the workflow in `docs\u002Fagents\u002Fissue-tracker.md`.\n2. A path the user passed as an argument.\n3. A spec file under `docs\u002F`, `specs\u002F`, or `.scratch\u002F` matching the branch name or feature.\n4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report \"no spec available\".\n\n### 3. Identify the standards sources\n\nAnything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.\n\nOn top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:\n\n- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.\n- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic (\"possible Feature Envy\"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.\n\nEach smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:\n\n- **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.\n- **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.\n- **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.\n- **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.\n- **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.\n- **Repeated Switches**: the same `switch`\u002F`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.\n- **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.\n- **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.\n- **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.\n- **Message Chains**: long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.\n- **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.\n- **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.\n\n### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel\n\n**Standards sub-agent prompt** should include:\n\n- The full diff command and commit list.\n- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it).\n- The brief: \"Report, per file\u002Fhunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words.\"\n\n**Spec sub-agent prompt** should include:\n\n- The diff command and commit list.\n- The path or fetched contents of the spec.\n- The brief: \"Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words.\"\n\nIf the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.\n\n### 5. Aggregate\n\nPresent the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).\n\nEnd with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.\n\n## Why two axes\n\nA change can pass one axis and fail the other:\n\n- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**\n- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**\n\nReporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","e63965e4644984470d4cc8b3014a8b001f0c2666",".agents\u002Fskills\u002Fcode-review","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson","2026-11-11 03:04:59",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":63,"prompt":73,"zipAvailable":74},[64,67,70],{"tool":65,"command":66},"npx","npx skills add bnferguson\u002Fdotfiles --skill code-review",{"tool":68,"command":69},"bunx","bunx skills add bnferguson\u002Fdotfiles --skill code-review",{"tool":71,"command":72},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add bnferguson\u002Fdotfiles --skill code-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fcode-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[76],{"path":77,"resourceType":78,"resourceTypeDesc":79,"sizeBytes":80,"sourceHtmlUrl":81},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",100,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fcode-review\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",[83,112,127,157,166,179],{"skillNo":84,"name":85,"nameZh":6,"description":86,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":87,"licenseFileUrl":88,"sourceHtmlUrl":89,"categories":90,"keywords":94,"publishedAt":51},"01M6BVA3RS3M016FANZ6792F9H","skill-creator","Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Claude's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude\u002Fconfig\u002Fskills\u002Fskill-creator\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude\u002Fconfig\u002Fskills\u002Fskill-creator\u002FSKILL.md",[91],{"categoryNo":92,"categoryName":93,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,35,110,32,111],"creator","skill creator","specialized","workflows","create","update","capabilities","knowledge","tool","integrations","guide","new skill","existing skill","users","with","Existing","new",{"skillNo":113,"name":114,"nameZh":6,"description":115,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":116,"categories":117,"keywords":124,"publishedAt":51},"01M6BV94WN2RPYM8N6PN8TBNT8","writing-shape","Writing, exploit: shape raw material into an article, paragraph by paragraph.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-shape\u002FSKILL.md",[118,121],{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":122,"categoryName":123,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[125,126],"writing shape","writing",{"skillNo":128,"name":129,"nameZh":6,"description":130,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":87,"licenseFileUrl":131,"sourceHtmlUrl":132,"categories":133,"keywords":140,"publishedAt":51},"01M6BV8QDFJ6PXBVK5NFBZT5M7","webapp-testing","Test local web applications using Playwright. Use when verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, or viewing browser logs.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwebapp-testing\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwebapp-testing\u002FSKILL.md",[134,137],{"categoryNo":135,"categoryName":136,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",[141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,41,155,156,32],"webapp","webapp testing","testing","browser","frontend","screenshots","playwright","test","web","debugging","ui","logs","applications","behavior","local","test local",{"skillNo":158,"name":159,"nameZh":6,"description":160,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":161,"categories":162,"keywords":163,"publishedAt":51},"01M6BV8MDXKXNVHKS3QF3YDFTF","wait-what","Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwait-what\u002FSKILL.md",[],[164,165],"wait what","land",{"skillNo":167,"name":168,"nameZh":6,"description":169,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":170,"categories":171,"keywords":175,"publishedAt":51},"01M6BV756DJHT5BDA1HVRVHJJ7","prototype","Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fprototype\u002FSKILL.md",[172],{"categoryNo":173,"categoryName":174,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000032","设计师",[168,176,177,151,178],"design","explore","state",{"skillNo":180,"name":181,"nameZh":6,"description":182,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":183,"categories":184,"keywords":186,"publishedAt":51},"01M6BV6SBW166685KVBPWM2K4N","improve-codebase-architecture","Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fbnferguson\u002Fdotfiles\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fimprove-codebase-architecture\u002FSKILL.md",[185],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[187,188,189,190],"architecture","improve","improve codebase architecture","report"]