[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DASGMFGF078TM34HQGNH95":3,"skill-same:01M6DASGMFGF078TM34HQGNH95":58},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":17,"publishedAt":29,"linkOnly":30,"markdownContent":31,"markdownBody":32,"frontMatter":33,"refName":38,"commitSha":39,"skillDirectory":40,"forksCount":13,"repositoryHtmlUrl":41,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":42,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":43,"install":44,"resources":57},"01M6DASGMFGF078TM34HQGNH95","blogpost-editor",null,"Deep editorial review for publication readiness — narrative, structure, scannability, factual risk, tone, and reader usefulness. No silent rewrites.","tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap","tzeusy-org","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F141543652?v=4","01M6DAM1AP09H27BYGFY9QCNPB","01M6DAM1F4R187EK11XDN9JZKH",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-blogpost\u002Fsubskills\u002Fblogpost-editor\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28],"editor","blogpost editor","review","editorial review","risk","reader","structure","active","deep","tone","readiness","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: blogpost-editor\ndescription: Deep editorial review for publication readiness — narrative, structure, scannability, factual risk, tone, and reader usefulness. No silent rewrites.\nmetadata:\n  owner: tze\n  authors:\n    - tze\n  status: active\n  last_reviewed: \"2026-06-12\"\n---\n\nServe as a **professional editor** reviewing a blog post for publication readiness. Do a comprehensive editorial review and present findings organized by severity, with quotes and specific fixes.\n\n**Input**: A blog post slug, directory name, or path. If omitted, discover blog posts and use **AskUserQuestion** if multiple are found. If user says \"all\" or \"drafts\", review all matching posts and produce a report per post.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- **Never rewrite the author’s voice.** You are an editor, not a ghostwriter.\n- **Never delete content without confirmation.** Suggest cuts, but do not remove.\n- **Respect intentional style choices.** When uncertain, mark as “possibly intentional”.\n- **Be specific.** Every issue must include:\n  - location (heading + excerpt),\n  - what’s wrong,\n  - a concrete fix suggestion (not a full rewrite).\n- **One pass, comprehensive.** Don’t make the user invoke multiple times.\n- **Cite uncertainty.** If a factual claim may be controversial or context-dependent, flag it as “needs hedging \u002F needs citation”.\n\n---\n\n## Steps\n\n### 1) Resolve the post(s)\n\n- Discover likely post files (`index.mdx`, `index.md`, `.md`, `.mdx`).\n- Use **AskUserQuestion** if multiple candidates.\n- Read the post file.\n\n### 2) Parse frontmatter and body\n\nExtract:\n- `title`, `date`, `summary`\u002F`description`\u002F`excerpt`, `tags`\u002F`categories`\n- body text\n\nIf YAML is invalid, note it as **Critical** and stop further checks only if the post can’t be reliably parsed; otherwise continue.\n\n### 3) Post type & reader intent classification\n\nInfer (do not ask unless ambiguous):\n- Post type: `{personal story, tutorial, opinion, travelogue, review, medical\u002Fhealth journey, other}`\n- Likely target reader: `{general, peers, future patients, niche experts}`\n- Primary reader goal: `{learn, decide, be reassured, replicate, be entertained}`\n\nUse this to tailor editorial recommendations (e.g., checklists\u002Ftimelines for medical journeys).\n\n### 4) Structural checks (PASS\u002FFAIL)\n\nRecord:\n- Word count >300 (exclude code blocks)\n- Frontmatter complete (title\u002Fdate\u002Fsummary\u002Ftags)\n- Summary length 10–200 chars\n- Headings present for posts >800 words\n- Conclusion present (explicit closing thought)\n- Links: no empty\u002Fplaceholder URLs\n\n### 5) Narrative & structure review\n\nEvaluate:\n\n**Opening hook**\n- Flag generic throat-clearing or delayed stakes.\n- Suggest a stronger hook using existing material (don’t rewrite, propose options).\n\n**Logical flow \u002F ordering**\n- Identify sections that are out of order or would read better swapped.\n- Provide a suggested outline using the author’s existing headings.\n\n**Heading hierarchy & scannability**\n- Flag long blocks without headings.\n- Recommend a “reader map” if >1200 words:\n  - 4–6 bullets summarizing what’s ahead.\n\n**Conclusion**\n- Check that the ending lands a takeaway or “what now”.\n- Suggest a closing paragraph structure if needed.\n\n### 6) Repetition & redundancy detection\n\nFlag:\n- repeated claims stated multiple times across the post,\n- repeated phrases\u002Fframes (e.g., “delay as long as possible” repeated in multiple sections),\n- back-to-back paragraphs with the same rhetorical move (“I then…” x3+).\n\nFor each:\n- quote both instances,\n- recommend “merge \u002F keep one \u002F shorten later reference”.\n\n### 7) Factual risk & hedging review (non-academic, high value)\n\nIdentify “high-risk” factual claims:\n- absolute statements: “no cure”, “only recourse”, “impossible”\n- numerical claims: mortality %, durability years, risk reductions\n- comparative pharmacology statements\n- claims about evolving tech\u002Fprocedures\n\nFor each:\n- label: `{needs citation, needs hedging, needs context}`\n- suggest a safer phrasing template:\n  - “In my case \u002F my team said…”\n  - “My understanding is…”\n  - “For predominant AR, options may be more limited than for calcific AS…”\n- If you can’t verify within the post, recommend linking to guidelines or primary sources.\n\n### 8) Fact-check: research contentious claims\n\nFrom the claims flagged in step 7, select those that are **contentious, surprising, or load-bearing** (i.e., the post's argument collapses if the claim is wrong). Skip claims that are clearly personal anecdote (\"my doctor told me…\") or widely uncontested common knowledge.\n\nFor each selected claim:\n\n1. **Search** — use **WebSearch** (2–3 targeted queries per claim) to find authoritative sources: peer-reviewed papers, official guidelines, reputable journalism, manufacturer specs.\n2. **Evaluate** — read the top results with **WebFetch** and compare against the author's claim. Classify:\n   - **Wrong** — evidence clearly contradicts the claim. Flag as **Critical** in the report. Quote the counter-evidence and provide source URLs.\n   - **Disputed** — credible sources disagree or the claim is a known misconception. Cite the counter-evidence.\n   - **Partially supported** — true with caveats (different population, outdated, context-dependent). State the caveat.\n   - **Supported** — evidence agrees. Note the strongest source.\n   - **Unverifiable** — no authoritative source found either way. Recommend the author cite their own source or soften.\n3. **Report** — for each researched claim, output:\n   - the claim (quoted),\n   - verdict (`wrong \u002F disputed \u002F partially supported \u002F supported \u002F unverifiable`),\n   - key source(s) with URLs,\n   - suggested author action: keep as-is, add citation, add caveat, revise, or remove.\n\n**Guardrails for this step:**\n- Cap at **5 claims** per post to keep the review actionable. Prioritize by reader-impact.\n- Do NOT rewrite the claim for the author. Provide evidence and let them decide.\n- When sources conflict, present both sides and flag the disagreement.\n- Disclose when search results are inconclusive — never fabricate certainty.\n\n### 9) Tone & sensitivity review (especially for medical journeys)\n\nFlag:\n- accidentally “salesy” praise of a doctor\u002Fhospital,\n- overly absolute framing about other clinicians,\n- fear-inducing lines that could mislead readers,\n- humor that might land poorly given context.\n\nOffer balanced alternatives that preserve voice (suggestions, not rewrites).\n\n### 10) Reader usefulness module (genre completeness)\n\nIf post type is **medical\u002Fhealth journey**, check presence of (PASS\u002FFAIL + suggestions):\n- “Where I am now \u002F current status”\n- Simple timeline (table or bullets)\n- “What I wish I knew”\n- “Questions I asked \u002F would ask”\n- Practical checklist (what to pack \u002F what helped)\n- “Not medical advice” disclaimer (optional but recommended)\n\nOutput missing items as **Recommended** with specific insertion points.\n\n### 11) Visual pacing & asset plan (editorial)\n\nBeyond “add images”, propose:\n- **What** visual to add (timeline table, diagram, pull-quote, callout)\n- **Where** to place it (after which paragraph\u002Fheading)\n- **Why** (what it clarifies)\n- Optional: a draft caption + draft alt text (short)\n\nFlag any wall-of-text stretch >300 words without a visual break and propose one visual break.\n\n### 12) Spelling, grammar, and typos (NO auto-correct)\n\nScan for:\n- typos, grammar issues, tense inconsistencies, ambiguous pronouns\n- but respect wordplay and casual tone\n\nFor each flagged item:\n- include the full sentence,\n- suggest correction (do not apply automatically),\n- label “possibly intentional” when uncertain.\n\n### 13) Produce the editorial report\n\nFormat exactly:\n\nEditorial Review: \"{title}\"\nWord count: {count} {PASS\u002FFAIL}\nReading time: ~{N} min (assume 220 wpm)\nReadability: ~grade {N} (Flesch-Kincaid, exclude code blocks)\nFrontmatter: {PASS\u002FFAIL}\nThumbnail: {PASS\u002FFAIL} ({filename} or \"missing\")\n\nStructural Checks\nCheck\tStatus\tNote\n...\t\t\nCritical (must fix before publish)\n{Issue} — {location}\n\nQuote: “...”\n\nWhy it matters:\n\nSuggested fix:\n\nRecommended (should fix)\n...\n\nSuggestions (nice to have)\n...\n\nRepetition & Redundancy\nInstance A: {location} — “...”\n\nInstance B: {location} — “...”\n\nRecommendation: ...\n\nFactual Risk & Hedging\nClaim: \"...\"\n\nRisk: {needs citation\u002Fhedging\u002Fcontext}\n\nSuggested phrasing template:\n\n```text\nFact-Check Results\nClaim: \"...\"\n\nVerdict: {wrong \u002F disputed \u002F partially supported \u002F supported \u002F unverifiable}\n\nEvidence: ...\n\nSources: [source title](URL), ...\n\nAction: {keep as-is \u002F add citation \u002F add caveat \u002F revise \u002F remove}\n```\n\nVisual Pacing & Asset Plan\nWall-of-text: {heading} (~{N} words)\n\nAdd: {timeline\u002Fdiagram\u002Fcallout\u002Fpull-quote}\n\nPlacement:\n\nCaption\u002Falt (optional):\n\nTone\nOverall assessment:\n\nFlags:\n\nSummary\nCritical: {count}\n\nRecommended: {count}\n\nSuggestions: {count}\n\nVerdict: {Ready to publish \u002F Needs revision \u002F Major rework needed}\n\n---","Serve as a **professional editor** reviewing a blog post for publication readiness. Do a comprehensive editorial review and present findings organized by severity, with quotes and specific fixes.\n\n**Input**: A blog post slug, directory name, or path. If omitted, discover blog posts and use **AskUserQuestion** if multiple are found. If user says \"all\" or \"drafts\", review all matching posts and produce a report per post.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- **Never rewrite the author’s voice.** You are an editor, not a ghostwriter.\n- **Never delete content without confirmation.** Suggest cuts, but do not remove.\n- **Respect intentional style choices.** When uncertain, mark as “possibly intentional”.\n- **Be specific.** Every issue must include:\n  - location (heading + excerpt),\n  - what’s wrong,\n  - a concrete fix suggestion (not a full rewrite).\n- **One pass, comprehensive.** Don’t make the user invoke multiple times.\n- **Cite uncertainty.** If a factual claim may be controversial or context-dependent, flag it as “needs hedging \u002F needs citation”.\n\n---\n\n## Steps\n\n### 1) Resolve the post(s)\n\n- Discover likely post files (`index.mdx`, `index.md`, `.md`, `.mdx`).\n- Use **AskUserQuestion** if multiple candidates.\n- Read the post file.\n\n### 2) Parse frontmatter and body\n\nExtract:\n- `title`, `date`, `summary`\u002F`description`\u002F`excerpt`, `tags`\u002F`categories`\n- body text\n\nIf YAML is invalid, note it as **Critical** and stop further checks only if the post can’t be reliably parsed; otherwise continue.\n\n### 3) Post type & reader intent classification\n\nInfer (do not ask unless ambiguous):\n- Post type: `{personal story, tutorial, opinion, travelogue, review, medical\u002Fhealth journey, other}`\n- Likely target reader: `{general, peers, future patients, niche experts}`\n- Primary reader goal: `{learn, decide, be reassured, replicate, be entertained}`\n\nUse this to tailor editorial recommendations (e.g., checklists\u002Ftimelines for medical journeys).\n\n### 4) Structural checks (PASS\u002FFAIL)\n\nRecord:\n- Word count >300 (exclude code blocks)\n- Frontmatter complete (title\u002Fdate\u002Fsummary\u002Ftags)\n- Summary length 10–200 chars\n- Headings present for posts >800 words\n- Conclusion present (explicit closing thought)\n- Links: no empty\u002Fplaceholder URLs\n\n### 5) Narrative & structure review\n\nEvaluate:\n\n**Opening hook**\n- Flag generic throat-clearing or delayed stakes.\n- Suggest a stronger hook using existing material (don’t rewrite, propose options).\n\n**Logical flow \u002F ordering**\n- Identify sections that are out of order or would read better swapped.\n- Provide a suggested outline using the author’s existing headings.\n\n**Heading hierarchy & scannability**\n- Flag long blocks without headings.\n- Recommend a “reader map” if >1200 words:\n  - 4–6 bullets summarizing what’s ahead.\n\n**Conclusion**\n- Check that the ending lands a takeaway or “what now”.\n- Suggest a closing paragraph structure if needed.\n\n### 6) Repetition & redundancy detection\n\nFlag:\n- repeated claims stated multiple times across the post,\n- repeated phrases\u002Fframes (e.g., “delay as long as possible” repeated in multiple sections),\n- back-to-back paragraphs with the same rhetorical move (“I then…” x3+).\n\nFor each:\n- quote both instances,\n- recommend “merge \u002F keep one \u002F shorten later reference”.\n\n### 7) Factual risk & hedging review (non-academic, high value)\n\nIdentify “high-risk” factual claims:\n- absolute statements: “no cure”, “only recourse”, “impossible”\n- numerical claims: mortality %, durability years, risk reductions\n- comparative pharmacology statements\n- claims about evolving tech\u002Fprocedures\n\nFor each:\n- label: `{needs citation, needs hedging, needs context}`\n- suggest a safer phrasing template:\n  - “In my case \u002F my team said…”\n  - “My understanding is…”\n  - “For predominant AR, options may be more limited than for calcific AS…”\n- If you can’t verify within the post, recommend linking to guidelines or primary sources.\n\n### 8) Fact-check: research contentious claims\n\nFrom the claims flagged in step 7, select those that are **contentious, surprising, or load-bearing** (i.e., the post's argument collapses if the claim is wrong). Skip claims that are clearly personal anecdote (\"my doctor told me…\") or widely uncontested common knowledge.\n\nFor each selected claim:\n\n1. **Search** — use **WebSearch** (2–3 targeted queries per claim) to find authoritative sources: peer-reviewed papers, official guidelines, reputable journalism, manufacturer specs.\n2. **Evaluate** — read the top results with **WebFetch** and compare against the author's claim. Classify:\n   - **Wrong** — evidence clearly contradicts the claim. Flag as **Critical** in the report. Quote the counter-evidence and provide source URLs.\n   - **Disputed** — credible sources disagree or the claim is a known misconception. Cite the counter-evidence.\n   - **Partially supported** — true with caveats (different population, outdated, context-dependent). State the caveat.\n   - **Supported** — evidence agrees. Note the strongest source.\n   - **Unverifiable** — no authoritative source found either way. Recommend the author cite their own source or soften.\n3. **Report** — for each researched claim, output:\n   - the claim (quoted),\n   - verdict (`wrong \u002F disputed \u002F partially supported \u002F supported \u002F unverifiable`),\n   - key source(s) with URLs,\n   - suggested author action: keep as-is, add citation, add caveat, revise, or remove.\n\n**Guardrails for this step:**\n- Cap at **5 claims** per post to keep the review actionable. Prioritize by reader-impact.\n- Do NOT rewrite the claim for the author. Provide evidence and let them decide.\n- When sources conflict, present both sides and flag the disagreement.\n- Disclose when search results are inconclusive — never fabricate certainty.\n\n### 9) Tone & sensitivity review (especially for medical journeys)\n\nFlag:\n- accidentally “salesy” praise of a doctor\u002Fhospital,\n- overly absolute framing about other clinicians,\n- fear-inducing lines that could mislead readers,\n- humor that might land poorly given context.\n\nOffer balanced alternatives that preserve voice (suggestions, not rewrites).\n\n### 10) Reader usefulness module (genre completeness)\n\nIf post type is **medical\u002Fhealth journey**, check presence of (PASS\u002FFAIL + suggestions):\n- “Where I am now \u002F current status”\n- Simple timeline (table or bullets)\n- “What I wish I knew”\n- “Questions I asked \u002F would ask”\n- Practical checklist (what to pack \u002F what helped)\n- “Not medical advice” disclaimer (optional but recommended)\n\nOutput missing items as **Recommended** with specific insertion points.\n\n### 11) Visual pacing & asset plan (editorial)\n\nBeyond “add images”, propose:\n- **What** visual to add (timeline table, diagram, pull-quote, callout)\n- **Where** to place it (after which paragraph\u002Fheading)\n- **Why** (what it clarifies)\n- Optional: a draft caption + draft alt text (short)\n\nFlag any wall-of-text stretch >300 words without a visual break and propose one visual break.\n\n### 12) Spelling, grammar, and typos (NO auto-correct)\n\nScan for:\n- typos, grammar issues, tense inconsistencies, ambiguous pronouns\n- but respect wordplay and casual tone\n\nFor each flagged item:\n- include the full sentence,\n- suggest correction (do not apply automatically),\n- label “possibly intentional” when uncertain.\n\n### 13) Produce the editorial report\n\nFormat exactly:\n\nEditorial Review: \"{title}\"\nWord count: {count} {PASS\u002FFAIL}\nReading time: ~{N} min (assume 220 wpm)\nReadability: ~grade {N} (Flesch-Kincaid, exclude code blocks)\nFrontmatter: {PASS\u002FFAIL}\nThumbnail: {PASS\u002FFAIL} ({filename} or \"missing\")\n\nStructural Checks\nCheck\tStatus\tNote\n...\t\t\nCritical (must fix before publish)\n{Issue} — {location}\n\nQuote: “...”\n\nWhy it matters:\n\nSuggested fix:\n\nRecommended (should fix)\n...\n\nSuggestions (nice to have)\n...\n\nRepetition & Redundancy\nInstance A: {location} — “...”\n\nInstance B: {location} — “...”\n\nRecommendation: ...\n\nFactual Risk & Hedging\nClaim: \"...\"\n\nRisk: {needs citation\u002Fhedging\u002Fcontext}\n\nSuggested phrasing template:\n\n```text\nFact-Check Results\nClaim: \"...\"\n\nVerdict: {wrong \u002F disputed \u002F partially supported \u002F supported \u002F unverifiable}\n\nEvidence: ...\n\nSources: [source title](URL), ...\n\nAction: {keep as-is \u002F add citation \u002F add caveat \u002F revise \u002F remove}\n```\n\nVisual Pacing & Asset Plan\nWall-of-text: {heading} (~{N} words)\n\nAdd: {timeline\u002Fdiagram\u002Fcallout\u002Fpull-quote}\n\nPlacement:\n\nCaption\u002Falt (optional):\n\nTone\nOverall assessment:\n\nFlags:\n\nSummary\nCritical: {count}\n\nRecommended: {count}\n\nSuggestions: {count}\n\nVerdict: {Ready to publish \u002F Needs revision \u002F Major rework needed}\n\n---",{"name":5,"metadata":34,"description":7},{"owner":35,"status":25,"authors":36,"last_reviewed":37},"tze",[35],"2026-06-12","main","c907d6f0bf96bd61b936e8972e0f1c66ebb8148c","skills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-blogpost\u002Fsubskills\u002Fblogpost-editor","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org","2026-11-10 23:17:25",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":45,"prompt":55,"zipAvailable":56},[46,49,52],{"tool":47,"command":48},"npx","npx skills add tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap --skill blogpost-editor",{"tool":50,"command":51},"bunx","bunx skills add tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap --skill blogpost-editor",{"tool":53,"command":54},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap --skill blogpost-editor","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-blogpost\u002Fsubskills\u002Fblogpost-editor\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[59,84,110,125,144,155],{"skillNo":60,"name":61,"nameZh":6,"description":62,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":63,"categories":64,"keywords":65,"publishedAt":29},"01M6DAZD21TWH2ET70V9FF75CQ","user-run","Use when a step needs privileges this session lacks (docker, sudo, another user's checkout or secrets, host access) and the owner must run it as tze. Writes a reviewable \u002Fhome\u002Forca\u002F.tmp\u002F\u003Cslug>\u002Frun.sh that impersonates tze (USER_TO_IMPERSONATE overrides), tees timestamped logs plus latest.log and collects artifacts there; Claude presents it with a risk and time brief, then continues from the logs. Triggers: \"I'll run it for you\", \"permission denied on docker.sock\", \"needs sudo\", \"sudo: a password is required\", \"run as tze\", \"\u002Fuser-run\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fuser-run\u002FSKILL.md",[],[66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,25,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,22,83],"user run","user","run","docker","logs","use","host","as","triggers","permission","time","log","artifacts","session","password","access","secrets","brief",{"skillNo":85,"name":86,"nameZh":6,"description":87,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":88,"categories":89,"keywords":100,"publishedAt":29},"01M6DAZAHTCBAD2WF0GAHWPST8","requesting-code-review","Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-workflow\u002Fsubskills\u002Frequesting-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[90,95],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":98,"taxonomyTypeDesc":99},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[101,102,20,103,104,105,25,106,107,71,108,109],"requesting code review","code","code review","work","requirements","upstream","superpowers","verify","tasks",{"skillNo":111,"name":112,"nameZh":6,"description":113,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":114,"categories":115,"keywords":118,"publishedAt":29},"01M6DAZ7CJ82D81XZB2YHVVY48","receiving-code-review","Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-workflow\u002Fsubskills\u002Freceiving-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[116,117],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":98,"taxonomyTypeDesc":99},[119,102,20,103,25,106,120,107,71,121,122,123,124],"receiving code review","implementation","code review feedback","technical","feedback","verification",{"skillNo":126,"name":127,"nameZh":6,"description":128,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":129,"categories":130,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":29},"01M6DAZ4ER76ADXJ9KRFP7V3Q9","finishing-a-development-branch","Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-workflow\u002Fsubskills\u002Ffinishing-a-development-branch\u002FSKILL.md",[],[132,133,134,135,71,136,104,137,138,139,107,140,141,142,25,106,143,120],"branch","development","finishing a development branch","integrate","decide","how","cleanup","pr","merge","tests","structured","options",{"skillNo":145,"name":146,"nameZh":6,"description":147,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":148,"categories":149,"keywords":150,"publishedAt":29},"01M6DAYZFWWW2YPKP89QNQR96H","executing-plans","Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-workflow\u002Fsubskills\u002Fexecuting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[],[151,152,153,20,154,25,106,120,107,71,79],"plans","executing plans","plan","execute",{"skillNo":156,"name":157,"nameZh":6,"description":158,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":159,"categories":160,"keywords":161,"publishedAt":29},"01M6DAYWM2YQHYCK7C35K1D29J","dispatching-parallel-agents","Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-workflow\u002Fsubskills\u002Fdispatching-parallel-agents\u002FSKILL.md",[],[162,163,164,71,107,106,165,25,166,109,167],"parallel agents","parallel","dispatching parallel agents","state","dependencies","shared"]