scoobydrew83
UserA coordinated library of Claude skills with explicit phase/handoff routing, shared state, and a maker/checker loop.
Categories
Indexed Skills (20)
agent-orchestration
Coordinate a phased, multi-specialist workflow for complex software work that spans several build stages — design, planning, implementation, testing, and deployment. Use this whenever a request bundles multiple stages together, e.g. "design this feature, plan the implementation, and scaffold the code", "take this idea to a working skeleton", "help me build X end to end", or any time the user wants structured coordination across the full build lifecycle rather than one isolated step. Trigger even when the user never says "orchestrate" or "agents" — what matters is that the task clearly has several stages that benefit from being sequenced with explicit phase boundaries and checkpoints. Do NOT trigger for single-stage asks ("fix this bug", "write this function") — those are handled directly without orchestration overhead.
conductor-init
Initialize a repo for the Conductor Method loop: write init.sh, seed FEATURES.json from the spec, create CONTEXT.md and MEMORY_BANK.md, verify a one-command test and a one-command lint actually pass, and land the baseline commit `loop(0): baseline green + criteria defined`. Use whenever someone is standing up a builder/verifier loop on a repo that doesn't have one yet, or says "set up the conductor loop here", "initialize this repo for the loop", "do Phase 0", "get this repo loop-ready", "seed FEATURES.json", or asks why the verifier keeps returning BLOCKED on a fresh project (the answer is almost always missing acceptance criteria, which is what this skill installs). Also use on an existing repo to audit and repair a half-done Phase 0. Do NOT trigger to design the loop itself or write its prompts — that is `loop-creator`; this skill only prepares the ground the loop runs on.
conductor-memory
Extract and build a complete memory pack from a Claude conversation or session, synthesizing it into vault-ready artifacts so the next session resumes with full context. Produces a conversation summary, artifact index, communication-style and project-context notes, a machine-readable seed JSON and persona YAML, verification and maintenance checklists, and a generalized integration.py that copies the pack into an Obsidian vault and updates a Claude Code resume pointer (with an optional MCP/vector-store hook). Use this whenever the user says 'build conductor memory', 'extract memory from this conversation', 'capture this session', 'snapshot our progress', 'save this to memory', or 'update conductor memory' - and also when wrapping up a substantial working session that should persist for continuity across Claude Code, Obsidian, or MCP, even if they don't say the word 'memory'. Built for the Conductor Method continuity system; works for any project needing durable cross-session memory.
derisk-sequencer
Turn a validated idea into a risk-ordered sequence of experiments and build steps, with one hard rule — no product code is scheduled before the test that de-risks it. Use whenever someone has an idea worth building and asks what to do in what order — "what should I build first", "what order do I tackle this", "sequence this plan", "de-risk this roadmap", or presents a build plan that front-loads construction ahead of validation. The method lists the load-bearing assumptions, scores each by risk divided by cost-to-test, orders experiments cheapest-decisive first with kill-gates between them, places every build step after its unlocking test, and defers governance, breadth, and optimization until their gates clear — then emits an ordered sequence and a linter that flags build-before-its-test. Distinct from task-decomposition and overwhelm-breakdown (which collapse a big task to one next step for momentum) and agent-orchestration (which sequences build phases); this sequences de-risking ahead of building.
drift-check
Audit a set of related project documents for internal contradictions and drift from their stated mission, with a skeptical eye that distrusts suspiciously clean alignment. Use whenever the user points at multiple docs (spec, PLANNING.md, README, CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, system prompt, TASK tracker, ADRs) and asks "are these consistent", "do my docs agree", "has my spec drifted", "check alignment", "is my README in sync", "audit my project for consistency", or shares a self-alignment/audit report. Especially trigger when documents should agree on the same facts (tech stack, metrics, feature lists, naming, architecture, tone) and the task is finding where they silently diverge, or where identical copy-pasted claims masquerade as validation. Lead with the real state of alignment and the biggest contradiction, never a vanity score. For cross-document consistency and mission-drift within a project's own materials, not verifying external claims (use reality-check) or choosing between options (use a council skill).
experiment-designer
Design a single falsifiable experiment with its pass/fail threshold fixed BEFORE the run, so a result can't be rationalized after the fact. Use whenever someone has a hypothesis or risky assumption and is about to just try it and see — "how do I test whether X", "design an experiment for this", "is this optimization worth it", "how would I prove or disprove this", "what would falsify this", or any "let me just run it and look at the numbers" with no threshold named. The method isolates the one decisive question, states the hypothesis and its negation, fixes a numeric metric and a PASS/FAIL/KILL rule up front, picks the cheapest decisive design, controls the confound that would make the result lie (optimization-before-correctness especially), and emits a dated pre-registration plus a falsifiability check. Distinct from reality-check (verifies an existing plan's claims), goal-builder (writes Claude Code /goal conditions), and idea-validator (whole-idea GO/NO-GO); this designs one test and locks its bar.
goal-builder
Turn a vague intent into a correct, transcript-verifiable Claude Code /goal condition through a short question-and-answer interview, then (when the pattern recurs) crystallize it into a reusable .claude/commands/ slash command. Use whenever the user wants to write, fix, or improve a /goal command, set a completion condition, "keep Claude working until X", run an unattended/until-it-passes Claude Code session, or says their /goal "just keeps looping" or "stops too early". Trigger even if they don't say "goal" but describe wanting Claude Code to loop on its own until a measurable end state holds. The point is to stop them writing a PROMPT ("clean up my code") when /goal needs a CONDITION ("npm test exits 0, without editing the test file"), and to refuse any goal whose finish line a transcript-reading evaluator can't check. For crafting the single /goal line; to build a full builder/verifier loop package (spec, prompts, harness, CI) use loop-creator.
idea-validator
Pressure-test whether an idea, product, or feature is worth building — BEFORE sinking days into it. Use whenever someone weighs building something and the real risk is the premise rather than the code. Triggers include "should I build X", "is this idea worth it", "validate this idea", "does this beat what already exists", "should this exist", "I'm about to build X", or mid-build "should I keep going or kill it". The method names the incumbent you must beat, ranks assumptions by risk × cost-to-test, attacks the cheapest riskiest one first, pre-registers kill criteria before any test, separates whether it's real from whether it's differentiated (real-but-commodity is a NO), and ends with a GO / NO-GO / CONDITIONAL-GO verdict plus scorecard. Trigger even on enthusiasm ("I have a great idea for…"), not just doubt. Distinct from reality-check (verifies an existing plan for hallucinations); this decides whether a thing should be built at all.
loop-creator
Design and generate autonomous/semi-autonomous AI work loops and the prompts that drive them — builder/verifier (maker/checker) loops, phased build loops, queue-driven multi-task loops, and nightly triage. Every loop it produces has explicit acceptance criteria, a verifier separated from the builder ("close is FAIL"), commit checkpoints, a hard max-iteration + human-escalation stop, and safe stopping conditions. Use whenever the user wants to build a loop, "create a loop", "make a loop creator", set up a self-correcting or maker/checker loop, write prompts for a loop, design an evaluator-optimizer or agentic loop, scaffold a LOOP_QUEUE, or wire a nightly triage workflow — even if they don't say the word "loop" but describe an iterate-until-it-passes process. When (and only when) the request says to look at a codebase or use Claude Code, it inspects the repo read-only and emits a headless Claude Code harness. Defaults to the Conductor Method conventions, all clearly overridable.
neurodivergent-comms
Format and pace responses so they're genuinely usable for neurodivergent people — ADHD and autistic readers especially — and adapt how you communicate whenever someone states a processing or pacing preference. Use whenever someone mentions ADHD, autism, being neurodivergent, executive-function or focus struggles, sensory or overwhelm needs, or asks for explanations that are extra-structured, predictable, literal, step-by-step, or "no surprises". Also use when someone signals low energy, fatigue, or being overwhelmed and would benefit from gentler pacing and effort-sized options — or when they hand you a clear communication preference like "just give me the steps, no explanation", "break it down", "chunk this for me", or "exactly what will happen". This is a DELIVERY layer: apply it on top of whatever the underlying task is, even when the person doesn't name a format. Do NOT treat it as a fixed template to stamp on every reply — read the cues and adapt, because ADHD and autistic needs sometimes pull in differe
overwhelm-breakdown
Break an overwhelming project — or any large, vague task someone can't find an entry point into — down to a single concrete next step. Use whenever someone faces something big and signals they're stuck or overwhelmed: "I need to build a whole reporting system but I don't know where to start", "this feels like too much", "where do I even begin with X", "I'm drowning in this project", "can you break this down", "chunk it for me", "I'm paralyzed by the size of this". The goal is momentum, not a master plan: decompose into a few major parts, then collapse all the way down to one doable step sized by time AND energy, with a clear definition of done for today. Trigger on the combination of a large or ambiguous task PLUS stuck-ness, overwhelm, or an explicit request to break the work down — even if the person never uses the words "overwhelm" or "breakdown". Do NOT use this to produce a full project plan — that's the opposite of what an overwhelmed person needs.
project-postmortem
Generate an evidence-grounded project retrospective — pulled from git history and decision docs, not memory — that grades the project on separate dimensions, splits what went right from wrong, reduces the failure to its root ordering error, extracts transferable lessons for the next project, and names what survives. Use whenever a project ships, stalls, or gets sunset and someone wants the writeup — "post-mortem", "retrospective", "what went wrong with X", "we're sunsetting X, write it up", or mid-project "why did this go sideways". The method cites commit hashes or sources for every claim, builds a timeline of when validation happened vs building, separates pros from cons including uncomfortable symmetries, and ends with a per-dimension scorecard plus a what-survives list — then runs a check that fails any vanity scorecard or uncited narrative. Distinct from drift-check (audits live docs) and conductor-memory/session-bookend (capture session state for continuity); this extracts backward-looking lessons.
prompt-template-generator
Analyze a software project's files and generate a tailored, copy-paste-ready prompt-template cookbook (a Markdown "PROMPT-TEMPLATES.md") with the project's real stack, paths, subsystems, and conventions already filled in. Use this whenever the user wants to create prompt templates, a prompt cookbook, a prompt library, prompt scaffolding, reusable AI-coding prompts, or a "prompt template generator" for a codebase — or says things like "make prompt templates for my project", "build a prompt guide for this repo", "generate copy-paste prompts for my codebase", or "turn my project into a set of reusable Claude/Cursor prompts". Trigger it even when the user just points at a project and asks for ready-to-use prompts, since the value is filling templates with project-specific facts they'd otherwise type by hand.
reality-check
Pressure-test an AI-generated technical plan, recommendation set, setup guide, or tool/config list for hallucinations, factual errors, and unnecessary complexity, then verify the surviving claims against live sources before the user acts on them. Use whenever the user pastes recommendations, an implementation plan, a tooling/MCP/package list, install commands, or config and says "validate this", "fact-check this", "is this real/accurate", "did it hallucinate", "sanity-check this", "pressure-test this", "is this overkill", or asks whether a plan is feasible and worth doing. Especially trigger when the content looks AI-generated and is dense with checkable specifics (package names, repo URLs, CLI flags, file paths, versions, env vars, named "best-practice" patterns, time estimates) that could be fabricated. This is for VERIFYING the accuracy and practical value of an EXISTING plan, not for choosing between open options or deciding from scratch (use a decision/council skill for that).
repo-troubleshooting-guide
Generate a clean, professional troubleshooting guide (a TROUBLESHOOTING.md) by analyzing a code repository — detecting its tech stack and mining real evidence (raised exceptions, error strings, env vars, ports, Docker services, CI) to document common failure modes with step-by-step fixes. Use this whenever the user wants to create, build, or generate a troubleshooting doc, guide, runbook, or ops reference for a repo, codebase, or project; wants to document common errors, setup problems, failure modes, or "how to fix X"; or points Claude at a repository and asks for a debugging/operations reference. Trigger even if the user doesn't say the exact word "troubleshooting" — e.g. "document the common errors in this repo", "make a debugging runbook", "build a setup-issues guide", "write an ops doc for this project".
session-bookend
Open and close work sessions with clean, grounded continuity. Use at the START of a session when someone returns to ongoing work — "where were we", "pick up where we left off", "what's the status of X", "back to the project" — to produce a recap of what's done, where things stand, decisions made and why, and the next step. Use at the END of a session — "let's wrap up", "good place to stop", "save where we are" — to produce a clean handoff for next time. The defining rule: ground every recap in REAL retrieved context (past-chat search, memory, project files, notes), never invented status. Trigger whenever a multi-session project is resuming or wrapping. Do NOT fabricate a "where we left off" from nothing — if you can't retrieve it, say so and ask.
session-continuity
Pick up where a past conversation left off by retrieving real history instead of guessing. Use this whenever someone writes as if you already share context — "where were we," "that schema we designed last month," "continue the project," "what did we decide about X," "remember the thing I'm working on" — or resumes after a gap and expects you to know the prior state. Reach for it on possessives and definite articles that assume shared memory ("my project," "the bug we discussed," "our approach") even when they don't explicitly say "do you remember."
system-prompt-builder
Interview-driven builder for enterprise-grade AI system prompts and agent architectures. Use whenever the user wants to design, build, scaffold, or rebuild a system prompt, custom assistant, AI agent, project instructions, custom GPT, multi-agent system, or any reusable LLM instruction set. Trigger on phrases like "build me a prompt system", "design an agent", "write system instructions", "turn this into an agent", "create project instructions", "I want an AI that does X reliably", or any request to architect how an AI should behave across many future interactions — even when the user never says the words "system prompt." Also trigger when the user pastes an existing system prompt and wants it rebuilt, hardened, or extended.
adaptive-communication
DEPRECATED — this skill was merged into `neurodivergent-comms` on 2026-06-16 because the two were competing for the same triggers. Do NOT trigger this skill. If you see this description matching a user request, use `neurodivergent-comms` instead — it now covers ADHD-leaning, autism-leaning, energy-aware, and general "format/pace this for me" requests, including the before/after example and the literal-clarity guidance that used to live here. This tombstone exists only because the source file could not be deleted in the build environment; treat it as a no-op redirect.
task-decomposition
DEPRECATED — this skill was merged into `overwhelm-breakdown` on 2026-06-16 because the two were competing for the same triggers. Do NOT trigger this skill. If you see this description matching a user request, use `overwhelm-breakdown` instead — it now covers "I'm overwhelmed, where do I start?" alongside "break this big thing down for me", with the worked reporting-system example, the size-by-time-AND-energy guidance, and the "use real tools only" caution that used to live here. This tombstone exists only because the source file could not be deleted in the build environment; treat it as a no-op redirect.
Bio shown is the top-scored skill's repo description as a fallback — real GitHub bios land in a future update.