[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DAVEP9MGDBQG054YFSPNBG":3,"skill-same:01M6DAVEP9MGDBQG054YFSPNBG":90},{"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":38,"linkOnly":39,"markdownContent":40,"markdownBody":41,"frontMatter":42,"refName":50,"commitSha":51,"skillDirectory":52,"forksCount":13,"repositoryHtmlUrl":53,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":54,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":55,"install":56,"resources":69},"01M6DAVEP9MGDBQG054YFSPNBG","greenfield-parity",null,"Use when judging whether a codebase (or a change) carries more complexity than its current spec needs — \"would we build it this way from scratch?\", \"is this over-engineered for what it does\", \"this reads vibe-coded\", \"reconcile the existing complexity against the goal\" — and when an audit that files beads must be re-runnable without duplicating findings already in the backlog. Pre-production codebases where rewrite is on the table are the primary case.","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-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"greenfield parity","dossier","active","backlog","delta","build","files","uv","complexity","use","review","closeout","subagent","projects","beads","audit","change","workflow","python","cli","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: greenfield-parity\ndescription: >\n  Use when judging whether a codebase (or a change) carries more complexity than its\n  current spec needs — \"would we build it this way from scratch?\", \"is this\n  over-engineered for what it does\", \"this reads vibe-coded\", \"reconcile the\n  existing complexity against the goal\" — and when an audit that files beads must be\n  re-runnable without duplicating findings already in the backlog. Pre-production\n  codebases where rewrite is on the table are the primary case.\nmetadata:\n  owner: tze\n  authors:\n    - tze\n    - Claude Fable 5.1\n  status: active\n  last_reviewed: \"2026-10-21\"\ncompatibility: idempotent-audit requires the bd CLI, jq, and a Beads-backed repository; the delta workflow needs none. The closeout owner dossier uses th-projects\u002Fsubskills\u002Fuser-questionnaire scripts (uv, Python 3.11+) and a subagent for adversarial review.\n---\n\n# Greenfield Parity\n\nA codebase's shape is a function of its current spec, not its history. Test:\nsketch what a competent engineer would build today, from scratch, for the\ncurrent goal; actual code sits within a small, written-down delta of that\nsketch. Each excess is a constraint the sketch missed (record it so the next\nsketch includes it) or residue (remove it).\n\nThe enforcing audit is **idempotent**: same head → same backlog, not a second\ncopy; remediated head → nothing new. Audits that re-file known findings\nerode the backlog faster than they improve the code.\n\n## Use This Skill When\n\n- Auditing a pre-production or personal codebase where everything is up for\n  refactoring\n- Code \"works\" but a reviewer would call it over-built or verbose for the\n  problem\n- Deciding whether a restructure or rewrite beats incremental cleanup\n- Filing audit findings into a backlog that may already cover some of them\n\n## Do Not Use This Skill For\n\n- One finished refactor's leftover wrappers, aliases, fallbacks —\n  [cruft-cleanup](..\u002Fcruft-cleanup\u002FSKILL.md); this skill is residue at\n  architecture scale\n- Naming and function shape — [code-readability](..\u002Fcode-readability\u002FSKILL.md)\n- Import direction, cycles, third-party policy —\n  [dependency-hygiene](..\u002Fdependency-hygiene\u002FSKILL.md)\n- Scoring repo health or deciding what to build next — `\u002Fth-projects`\n  (project-review cites this skill as its complexity lens; project-direction\n  sequences the result)\n\n## Core Rules\n\n1. **Sketch before you read.** Write the greenfield sketch from spec and\n   manifests only, before reading implementation — a reviewer who reads code\n   first rationalizes it. A fresh-context subagent given only spec and\n   manifests is un-anchored by construction.\n2. **Excess is justified or it is residue.** Justified means a named\n   constraint, written into spec or doctrine in the same change; otherwise\n   the finding's target state is the sketch's counterpart, often \"nothing\".\n3. **Compatibility has one exception.** Residue stays only for a verified\n   external consumer that cannot be updated in the same change, under an\n   owned, dated removal plan\n   ([compat-boundary](..\u002Fcruft-cleanup\u002Freferences\u002Fcompat-boundary.md));\n   it enters the delta as `justified`, time-bounded. Same-repo callers and\n   private APIs never qualify. Absent the exception, the target is the\n   sketch itself and a rewrite-to-target is one finding when incremental\n   removal would cost more.\n4. **Interfaces are where parity is enforced.** Residue behind a narrow\n   interface is cheap to delete later; residue in an exported surface\n   becomes tomorrow's compatibility exception. The sketch is\n   interface-first — boundaries, what crosses each, deep modules behind\n   small surfaces — and an interface finding outranks an internal one of\n   the same class.\n5. **Reconcile before you create.** A duplicate bead costs a worker a\n   full session, so match every finding against the already-known ledger\n   (open, in-progress, recently closed beads; prior reports) and land it as\n   attach \u002F supersede \u002F reopen \u002F close \u002F new. `new` is the last resort.\n6. **Convergence is done.** The report records head SHA and\n   new\u002Fattached\u002Fclosed counts so the next run diffs instead of restarting;\n   a run on the remediated head filing nothing new closes the loop.\n7. **Fix-it-now inside a change.** Applied during implementation rather\n   than an audit, leaf residue inside the change's scope is removed in that\n   change; only what exceeds the scope is filed (router invariant).\n8. **Owner gates end in a dossier, not a bead.** What the audit cannot\n   decide alone — a rewrite-to-target on an externally consumed surface,\n   a trust-boundary, migration, or concurrency-model change, a `justified`\n   row whose constraint amends doctrine, a compat exception needing an\n   owner and removal date — becomes one\n   [user-questionnaire](..\u002F..\u002F..\u002Fth-projects\u002Fsubskills\u002Fuser-questionnaire\u002FSKILL.md)\n   packet at closeout, adversarially reviewed and served as a web form; the\n   report ends with its `QUESTIONNAIRE_URL=` line\n   ([idempotent-audit § Owner dossier](.\u002Freferences\u002Fidempotent-audit.md#owner-dossier-closeout)).\n   Questionnaire items dedupe like beads: a prior packet's answered item is\n   not re-asked unless its evidence changed. No owner gates → say so.\n\n## Read Order\n\n| File | Read when | Content |\n|---|---|---|\n| [`references\u002Fdelta-workflow.md`](.\u002Freferences\u002Fdelta-workflow.md) | Judging complexity against the spec | Spec statement → interface-first sketch → inventory → delta table; residue classes; compat-exception path; finding contract; rewrite rule |\n| [`references\u002Fidempotent-audit.md`](.\u002Freferences\u002Fidempotent-audit.md) | Filing findings as beads; closing out | Ledger, reconciliation states, audit-key, progressive ordering, convergence record, owner dossier questionnaire |\n\n[`scripts\u002Fledger.sh`](.\u002Fscripts\u002Fledger.sh) `[repo_root] [closed_limit]`\nbuilds the already-known ledger (open\u002Fin-progress, recently closed,\naudit-keyed beads, prior packets, last convergence record); run it before\nany reconciliation. Bead form (fields, complexity labels, work-allocation)\nstays beads-writer's contract; this skill adds only dedupe and ordering.\n\n## Stops\n\n- Step order is the point: no implementation reading before the sketch is\n  recorded. A sketch written after is not a baseline.\n- `close` and `reopen` need file-level evidence at the audited SHA, never\n  inference from the report; a bead another assignee holds `in_progress`\n  gets a note, not a state change.\n- A rewrite-to-target on a surface with a verified external consumer, or any\n  trust-boundary, migration, or concurrency-model change, is a scope\n  change: it goes to the owner through the closeout questionnaire (rule 8)\n  and from there to `\u002Fth-projects` at the governing spec\u002Fallocation gate\n  (`beads-orchestration\u002Freferences\u002Fdecision-autonomy.md`), never a bead\n  filed silently.\n\n## Trigger Sanity Check\n\n- Should trigger: \"Pretend this is greenfield: how much of this repo should exist, and what do we cut?\"\n- Should trigger: \"Is this over-engineered for what it actually does?\"\n- Should trigger: \"Re-run last month's audit and update the backlog — don't duplicate beads.\"\n- Should not trigger: \"This rename left an old re-export behind.\" (cruft-cleanup)\n- Should not trigger: \"Score this repo's health across security, docs, and tests.\" (project-review)\n","# Greenfield Parity\n\nA codebase's shape is a function of its current spec, not its history. Test:\nsketch what a competent engineer would build today, from scratch, for the\ncurrent goal; actual code sits within a small, written-down delta of that\nsketch. Each excess is a constraint the sketch missed (record it so the next\nsketch includes it) or residue (remove it).\n\nThe enforcing audit is **idempotent**: same head → same backlog, not a second\ncopy; remediated head → nothing new. Audits that re-file known findings\nerode the backlog faster than they improve the code.\n\n## Use This Skill When\n\n- Auditing a pre-production or personal codebase where everything is up for\n  refactoring\n- Code \"works\" but a reviewer would call it over-built or verbose for the\n  problem\n- Deciding whether a restructure or rewrite beats incremental cleanup\n- Filing audit findings into a backlog that may already cover some of them\n\n## Do Not Use This Skill For\n\n- One finished refactor's leftover wrappers, aliases, fallbacks —\n  [cruft-cleanup](..\u002Fcruft-cleanup\u002FSKILL.md); this skill is residue at\n  architecture scale\n- Naming and function shape — [code-readability](..\u002Fcode-readability\u002FSKILL.md)\n- Import direction, cycles, third-party policy —\n  [dependency-hygiene](..\u002Fdependency-hygiene\u002FSKILL.md)\n- Scoring repo health or deciding what to build next — `\u002Fth-projects`\n  (project-review cites this skill as its complexity lens; project-direction\n  sequences the result)\n\n## Core Rules\n\n1. **Sketch before you read.** Write the greenfield sketch from spec and\n   manifests only, before reading implementation — a reviewer who reads code\n   first rationalizes it. A fresh-context subagent given only spec and\n   manifests is un-anchored by construction.\n2. **Excess is justified or it is residue.** Justified means a named\n   constraint, written into spec or doctrine in the same change; otherwise\n   the finding's target state is the sketch's counterpart, often \"nothing\".\n3. **Compatibility has one exception.** Residue stays only for a verified\n   external consumer that cannot be updated in the same change, under an\n   owned, dated removal plan\n   ([compat-boundary](..\u002Fcruft-cleanup\u002Freferences\u002Fcompat-boundary.md));\n   it enters the delta as `justified`, time-bounded. Same-repo callers and\n   private APIs never qualify. Absent the exception, the target is the\n   sketch itself and a rewrite-to-target is one finding when incremental\n   removal would cost more.\n4. **Interfaces are where parity is enforced.** Residue behind a narrow\n   interface is cheap to delete later; residue in an exported surface\n   becomes tomorrow's compatibility exception. The sketch is\n   interface-first — boundaries, what crosses each, deep modules behind\n   small surfaces — and an interface finding outranks an internal one of\n   the same class.\n5. **Reconcile before you create.** A duplicate bead costs a worker a\n   full session, so match every finding against the already-known ledger\n   (open, in-progress, recently closed beads; prior reports) and land it as\n   attach \u002F supersede \u002F reopen \u002F close \u002F new. `new` is the last resort.\n6. **Convergence is done.** The report records head SHA and\n   new\u002Fattached\u002Fclosed counts so the next run diffs instead of restarting;\n   a run on the remediated head filing nothing new closes the loop.\n7. **Fix-it-now inside a change.** Applied during implementation rather\n   than an audit, leaf residue inside the change's scope is removed in that\n   change; only what exceeds the scope is filed (router invariant).\n8. **Owner gates end in a dossier, not a bead.** What the audit cannot\n   decide alone — a rewrite-to-target on an externally consumed surface,\n   a trust-boundary, migration, or concurrency-model change, a `justified`\n   row whose constraint amends doctrine, a compat exception needing an\n   owner and removal date — becomes one\n   [user-questionnaire](..\u002F..\u002F..\u002Fth-projects\u002Fsubskills\u002Fuser-questionnaire\u002FSKILL.md)\n   packet at closeout, adversarially reviewed and served as a web form; the\n   report ends with its `QUESTIONNAIRE_URL=` line\n   ([idempotent-audit § Owner dossier](.\u002Freferences\u002Fidempotent-audit.md#owner-dossier-closeout)).\n   Questionnaire items dedupe like beads: a prior packet's answered item is\n   not re-asked unless its evidence changed. No owner gates → say so.\n\n## Read Order\n\n| File | Read when | Content |\n|---|---|---|\n| [`references\u002Fdelta-workflow.md`](.\u002Freferences\u002Fdelta-workflow.md) | Judging complexity against the spec | Spec statement → interface-first sketch → inventory → delta table; residue classes; compat-exception path; finding contract; rewrite rule |\n| [`references\u002Fidempotent-audit.md`](.\u002Freferences\u002Fidempotent-audit.md) | Filing findings as beads; closing out | Ledger, reconciliation states, audit-key, progressive ordering, convergence record, owner dossier questionnaire |\n\n[`scripts\u002Fledger.sh`](.\u002Fscripts\u002Fledger.sh) `[repo_root] [closed_limit]`\nbuilds the already-known ledger (open\u002Fin-progress, recently closed,\naudit-keyed beads, prior packets, last convergence record); run it before\nany reconciliation. Bead form (fields, complexity labels, work-allocation)\nstays beads-writer's contract; this skill adds only dedupe and ordering.\n\n## Stops\n\n- Step order is the point: no implementation reading before the sketch is\n  recorded. A sketch written after is not a baseline.\n- `close` and `reopen` need file-level evidence at the audited SHA, never\n  inference from the report; a bead another assignee holds `in_progress`\n  gets a note, not a state change.\n- A rewrite-to-target on a surface with a verified external consumer, or any\n  trust-boundary, migration, or concurrency-model change, is a scope\n  change: it goes to the owner through the closeout questionnaire (rule 8)\n  and from there to `\u002Fth-projects` at the governing spec\u002Fallocation gate\n  (`beads-orchestration\u002Freferences\u002Fdecision-autonomy.md`), never a bead\n  filed silently.\n\n## Trigger Sanity Check\n\n- Should trigger: \"Pretend this is greenfield: how much of this repo should exist, and what do we cut?\"\n- Should trigger: \"Is this over-engineered for what it actually does?\"\n- Should trigger: \"Re-run last month's audit and update the backlog — don't duplicate beads.\"\n- Should not trigger: \"This rename left an old re-export behind.\" (cruft-cleanup)\n- Should not trigger: \"Score this repo's health across security, docs, and tests.\" (project-review)\n",{"name":5,"metadata":43,"description":48,"compatibility":49},{"owner":44,"status":20,"authors":45,"last_reviewed":47},"tze",[44,46],"Claude Fable 5.1","2026-10-21","Use when judging whether a codebase (or a change) carries more complexity than its current spec needs — \"would we build it this way from scratch?\", \"is this over-engineered for what it does\", \"this reads vibe-coded\", \"reconcile the existing complexity against the goal\" — and when an audit that files beads must be re-runnable without duplicating findings already in the backlog. Pre-production codebases where rewrite is on the table are the primary case.\n","idempotent-audit requires the bd CLI, jq, and a Beads-backed repository; the delta workflow needs none. The closeout owner dossier uses th-projects\u002Fsubskills\u002Fuser-questionnaire scripts (uv, Python 3.11+) and a subagent for adversarial review.","main","c907d6f0bf96bd61b936e8972e0f1c66ebb8148c","skills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity","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":57,"prompt":67,"zipAvailable":68},[58,61,64],{"tool":59,"command":60},"npx","npx skills add tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap --skill greenfield-parity",{"tool":62,"command":63},"bunx","bunx skills add tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap --skill greenfield-parity",{"tool":65,"command":66},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add tzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap --skill greenfield-parity","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity\u002FSKILL.md",true,[70,76,80,84],{"path":71,"resourceType":72,"resourceTypeDesc":73,"sizeBytes":74,"sourceHtmlUrl":75},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",422,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",{"path":77,"resourceType":72,"resourceTypeDesc":73,"sizeBytes":78,"sourceHtmlUrl":79},"references\u002Fdelta-workflow.md",5923,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity\u002Freferences\u002Fdelta-workflow.md",{"path":81,"resourceType":72,"resourceTypeDesc":73,"sizeBytes":82,"sourceHtmlUrl":83},"references\u002Fidempotent-audit.md",5702,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity\u002Freferences\u002Fidempotent-audit.md",{"path":85,"resourceType":86,"resourceTypeDesc":87,"sizeBytes":88,"sourceHtmlUrl":89},"scripts\u002Fledger.sh","SCRIPT","脚本",1908,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Ftzeusy-org\u002Fai-bootstrap\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpersonal\u002Fth-engineering\u002Fsubskills\u002Fgreenfield-parity\u002Fscripts\u002Fledger.sh",[91,116,142,157,176,187],{"skillNo":92,"name":93,"nameZh":6,"description":94,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":95,"categories":96,"keywords":97,"publishedAt":38},"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",[],[98,99,100,101,102,27,103,104,105,106,20,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115],"user run","user","run","docker","logs","host","as","triggers","permission","time","log","artifacts","session","password","access","secrets","risk","brief",{"skillNo":117,"name":118,"nameZh":6,"description":119,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":120,"categories":121,"keywords":132,"publishedAt":38},"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",[122,127],{"categoryNo":123,"categoryName":124,"taxonomyType":125,"taxonomyTypeDesc":126},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":128,"categoryName":129,"taxonomyType":130,"taxonomyTypeDesc":131},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[133,134,28,135,136,137,20,138,139,27,140,141],"requesting code review","code","code review","work","requirements","upstream","superpowers","verify","tasks",{"skillNo":143,"name":144,"nameZh":6,"description":145,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":146,"categories":147,"keywords":150,"publishedAt":38},"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",[148,149],{"categoryNo":123,"categoryName":124,"taxonomyType":125,"taxonomyTypeDesc":126},{"categoryNo":128,"categoryName":129,"taxonomyType":130,"taxonomyTypeDesc":131},[151,134,28,135,20,138,152,139,27,153,154,155,156],"receiving code review","implementation","code review feedback","technical","feedback","verification",{"skillNo":158,"name":159,"nameZh":6,"description":160,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":161,"categories":162,"keywords":163,"publishedAt":38},"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",[],[164,165,166,167,27,168,136,169,170,171,139,172,173,174,20,138,175,152],"branch","development","finishing a development branch","integrate","decide","how","cleanup","pr","merge","tests","structured","options",{"skillNo":177,"name":178,"nameZh":6,"description":179,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":180,"categories":181,"keywords":182,"publishedAt":38},"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",[],[183,184,185,28,186,20,138,152,139,27,110],"plans","executing plans","plan","execute",{"skillNo":188,"name":189,"nameZh":6,"description":190,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":191,"categories":192,"keywords":193,"publishedAt":38},"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",[],[194,195,196,27,139,138,197,20,198,141,199],"parallel agents","parallel","dispatching parallel agents","state","dependencies","shared"]