aliasunder

trip-planner

Plan a real trip. Use for: hotel/flight/train/restaurant research for specific destinations and dates, creating travel documents (daily cards, itineraries, packing lists, offline guides), managing booking changes or cancellations, and resuming a trip project with CLAUDE.md/TASKS.md/memory/ files. Handles the full lifecycle — transport, accommodation, activities, restaurants, budget tracking, and printable traveler materials. ALWAYS use this skill in a trip planning project — detected by a CLAUDE.md with traveler profiles, an itinerary phase marker, or a memory/ directory with trip planning files. Also trigger on "plan a trip", "start a session", "research hotels", "find restaurants", "build the itinerary", "make daily cards", "create packing list", or any travel planning task. NOT for: presentations, file conversions, sending emails, building apps, or hypothetical travel questions.

5 Updated 2 days ago

bug-check

Systematic bug hunt focused on patterns that survive code review and test audit — description-vs-implementation mismatches, SQL correctness, type coercion bugs, boundary/off-by-one errors, behavioral asymmetry, and input validation gaps. Derived from analysis of 40+ bugs found by Qodo and CodeRabbit that the ship-check pipeline (pr-review, code-quality, test-audit) missed. Use when asked to "bug check", "check for bugs", "deep correctness check", "look for subtle bugs", or as part of the ship-check pipeline. NOT for: code style (use code-quality), test design (use test-audit), security review (use security-review), or high-level correctness review (use pr-review).

code-quality

Readability and convention compliance pass on production code, grounded in the project's AGENTS.md and the user's vault memory preferences. Use when asked to "do a readability pass", "code quality pass", "make more readable", "review code quality", "clean up against conventions", "simplify with my preferences", or "review against AGENTS.md". Different from the built-in /simplify (which is generic) — this loads project-specific conventions and personal preferences. NOT for: test file audits (use test-audit), full PR review (use pr-review), or generic simplification without convention grounding (use /simplify).

pr-monitor

Monitor PR status — CI checks, review bot findings, unresolved conversations — and address + resolve bot comments. After pushing fixes, waits for and handles new bot review comments before declaring merge-ready. Use when asked to "check PR status", "monitor this PR", "check CI", "resolve PR comments", "address review comments", "mark conversations resolved", or when waiting on a PR to be merge-ready. NOT for: initial code review (use pr-review), post-merge testing (use verify), or reviewing the diff itself.

pr-review

Project-aware PR review grounded in AGENTS.md conventions and vault memory. Runs a multi-dimension review: correctness, convention compliance, test quality, security, performance, and conditional checks (TDQS scoring, feature surface docs). Use when asked to "review this PR", "review PR #X", "do a thorough review", "review against AGENTS.md", or "review with my preferences in mind". Complements the built-in /code-review (which is generic) by loading project-specific conventions and personal preferences. NOT for: quick CI failure diagnosis (use pr-monitor), post-merge testing (use verify), or code simplification without a PR context (use code-quality).

Testing & QA Listed

test-audit

Audit test files against the project's AGENTS.md test conventions, ensuring tests meet the bar for high-quality behavioral specs. Also checks whether production code changes have adequate test coverage (coverage gap analysis). Use when asked to "audit tests", "check test quality", "review tests against AGENTS.md", "do a test pass", "check test conventions", "ensure tests are high quality", or "are there missing tests". Focuses on test design, assertion quality, and coverage gaps — not code coverage metrics. NOT for: production code quality (use code-quality) or full PR review (use pr-review).

plan-review

Adversarial critique of an implementation plan BEFORE any code exists — premise audit, alternatives comparison, guard/control arithmetic, concurrent-writer analysis, mechanism-cost proportionality, and verification-plan quality. Derived from analysis of real planning failures that survived a full post-implementation review pipeline because review verifies mechanisms, not premises. Use when asked to "review this plan", "critique the plan", "plan check", "is this plan ready", "review the task note before I start", or before implementing any card that adds behavior, a guard, or spans sessions. NOT for: reviewing implemented code or PRs (use ship-check / pr-review), writing the plan itself (that's fable-mode + Plan agents), or auditing tests (test-audit).

vault-onboarding

Bootstrap an agent collaboration system into an Obsidian vault — memory, protocols, task boards, and per-client instruction files via a conversational interview. Use when asked to "set up my vault", "onboard me", "bootstrap agent collaboration", "set up session protocols", "configure my vault for AI", or at the start of a new vault project. Also trigger when a vault has no About Me/ files, no TASKS.md, or no session protocol and the user wants to add them. NOT for: editing existing notes (use obsidian-vault), running a session protocol (use session-start/session-end), or vault-cortex server setup.

1 Updated 2 days ago

ship-check

Run the full post-implementation review pipeline: pr-review -> code-quality -> test-audit -> bug-check -> pr-monitor. Phases 1-4 run as dedicated agent types (ship-check plugin) with skills preloaded — genuine fresh eyes with no inherited context. Phase 5 (pr-monitor) runs inline for user interaction. Use when asked to "ship check", "review pipeline", "full review", "run all reviews", or after implementation is complete and ready for review. NOT for: single-dimension review (use the individual skill), quick CI check (use pr-monitor), or post-merge testing (use verify).

fresh-eyes

Read code as someone who has never seen the codebase — no conventions, no history, no attachment — and report every place a newcomer pauses: a name that had to be traced, a loop or branch with no stated reason, a term never introduced, a comparison that had to be reasoned about, a comment that promised something the code did not do. Report only; never edits. Use when asked to "read this as a stranger", "fresh eyes on this", "would a newcomer understand this", or to compare two candidate versions of a function on readability. NOT for: convention compliance (use code-quality), correctness or bug hunting (use pr-review / bug-check), or test review (use test-audit).