engineering-wisdom

Featured

Provide an explicitly requested, repository-grounded engineering review using contextual heuristics for code clarity, SOLID and design, testing, refactoring, architecture, and professional practice. Use only when the user invokes `$engineering-wisdom` or explicitly asks for this installed engineering-wisdom pack; do not turn its advice into repository policy or automatically rewrite an application architecture.

Code & Development 1,128 stars 403 forks Updated yesterday MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 92/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Engineering Wisdom Give practical advice without treating a school of thought as universal law. Repository intent, code, tests, and observed behavior remain authoritative. ## Establish Scope 1. Read `AGENTS.md`, `docs/WORKFLOW.md`, and only the repository material relevant to the request. 2. Confirm that the user explicitly invoked this skill. Installation alone is not activation. 3. Determine whether the request is advice/review or an authorized change. Keep reviews read-only. For changes, follow repository authority and validation rules before editing. 4. Read [references/heuristics.md](references/heuristics.md). Select only heuristics that match observed evidence. Read [references/sources.md](references/sources.md) when attribution or the intellectual basis matters. 5. When the request crosses a host boundary, inspect the composition root, external input, adapter semantics, shipped artifact, and cumulative state that are relevant. Do not assume isolated core tests prove those boundaries. ## Review From Evidence For each material finding, keep these fields separate: - **Observation:** A concrete repository fact with a path, symbol, test, command result, or behavior. - **Heuristic:** One named rule of thumb from the catalog and why it may apply. - **Trade-off:** Counter-pressure, cost, or a condition under which following the heuristic would make the system worse. - **Proposed repository-owned enforcement:** Either `None`, or a separate...

Details

Author
hoangnb24
Repository
hoangnb24/repository-harness
Created
2 months ago
Last Updated
yesterday
Language
Rust
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Solid

michel-packmind-engineer-review

Review an implemented GitHub issue the way a senior Packmind engineer would — the human-judgment checks that ESLint, the TypeScript compiler, and e2e tests cannot catch (authorization scoping, hexagonal-architecture conformance, analytics-event wiring, UX copy, UI reactivity, CLI behavior, multi-tenancy safety, and more). Use this skill once an issue has been implemented and you have a diff to inspect — before opening or merging the PR. Trigger on 'review this implementation', 'engineer review', 'packmind review', 'QC this issue', 'is this issue done well', 'review issue #NNN', or any post-implementation quality gate. Reach for it even when the user just says the work is done and asks 'anything I missed?' — automated checks already ran; this is the layer they don't cover.

303 Updated today
PackmindHub
Code & Development Listed

engineering-fundamentals

Engineering fundamentals reference covering requirements clarity, design integrity, code-level quality, test design, verification and validation, and metric thresholds. Use whenever the project contains source files in any compiled or scripted language (`.js`, `.ts`, `.py`, `.rb`, `.go`, `.rs`, `.java`, `.sh`, etc.), OR the user asks about code quality, design principles, SOLID, DRY, KISS, requirements clarity, test design, metrics, or any engineering review, audit, plan, or refactor task, even if "principles" or "fundamentals" are not mentioned by name.

0 Updated today
ku5ic
Code & Development Solid

battle-tested-engineer

Engineering judgment for code write/refactor/test and frontend UI. Trigger on code review, legacy cleanup, tests, UI with data, bloat/over-engineer complaints — even with no explicit mention, before any diff/rewrite/test suite. Output ultra-terse caveman style; code, commits, PR desc, security warnings stay normal prose.

6 Updated today
sayeed1999