スキルを探す

Walks a person through code changes one step at a time in conversation, starting at the entry point and following the flow that changes, showing a small chunk per step and explaining it in plain language. Defaults to the current branch's changes, and walks the code from the perspective of any context provided instead — a file, directory, symbol, pull request, plan, or ticket. Use when someone wants to be walked through, taught, paced through, or shown around code or a branch step by step, or to learn how a change works before reviewing or extending it. Stops after every step and waits, so the learner sets the pace. Paces through code that already exists and builds nothing — to build new work while being paced through it, use pairing. Does not produce a written overview to read alone — use code-overview. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not diagnose bugs — use investigate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Creates and updates coding standards, conventions, rules, and guidelines for the current project. Use when creating new standards from scratch, converting existing documents into coding standards, or updating existing standards. Does not create architectural decision records — use architectural-decision-record for ADRs. Does not write feature or system documentation — use project-documentation for that. Does not research open-ended options — use research. Does not produce runbooks for operational scenarios — use runbook for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Designs the contract for an API change inside one codebase — a component's props, a function surface, URL or query parameters, an event payload, or a module boundary — through a discovery pass, an options document with one recommendation, a question round, and an adversarial validation round, with every element of the contract justified from one stated goal. Use when you want to design, shape, decide, or nail down an interface, contract, signature, or API change for a capability you can already describe, sized for roughly one pull request. Produces a design document and changes no code. Does not specify what a feature should do — use plan-a-feature. Does not plan delivery or sequencing — use plan-implementation. Does not assess the architecture of existing code — use architectural-analysis. Does not write the code — use tdd. Does not restructure existing code — use refactor. Runs its rounds without pausing for review; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Surfaces Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard — the readability rule and the writing-voice profile — into the calling skill's own context, so the caller drafts in voice and runs its self-check against the current standard sourced from one canonical copy. Use when a prose-producing skill needs the shared readability standard available in context before it drafts. Governs the shape of a written deliverable, where explanation-guidance governs what a run says to a person in a turn. Runs in the caller's context and hands control straight back; it does not produce a deliverable of its own, rewrite anything, or judge the caller's work. Does not run the adversarial rewrite pass — dispatch the readability-editor agent for that, or use edit-for-readability to rewrite an existing target. Does not cover explaining technical work to a reader who will not implement it — use explanation-guidance for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Build work collaboratively in reviewable pieces, handing each piece back for review before starting the next, so the person stays in the lead and steers while the work happens instead of reviewing a finished result. Use when someone says to pair with them on something, asks to collaborate rather than direct, wants to review as it goes, or wants to guide the work piece by piece — on code, on a design decision, or on writing. For a test-first build it runs tdd, for restructuring it runs refactor, for an interface contract it runs design-an-api, and for plan work it runs iterative-plan-review or plan-implementation, each collaboratively; invoke any of those directly instead to run it straight through without pausing. Does not pace someone through code that already exists and builds nothing — use code-walkthrough. Does not explain, summarize, or research something instead of producing it — use code-overview or research.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Creates and maintains project documentation for features, systems, and components. Use when documenting how a feature, system, or component works — including writing, updating, or organizing docs. Does not scan or detect the project's technology stack — use project-discovery for repository analysis and config detection. Does not create architectural decision records — use architectural-decision-record for ADRs. Does not create or update coding standards — use coding-standard instead. Does not generate PR descriptions — use update-pr-description for that. Does not produce runbooks for operational scenarios — use runbook for that. Does not rewrite existing prose for readability — use edit-for-readability for that. Does not produce an ephemeral, understand-now overview of code or a PR — use code-overview for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Create or update a runbook for an operational scenario — an incident an alert fires for, a recurring scheduled task, or a known failure mode on a live service — using a consistent template. Use when writing, drafting, authoring, or updating a runbook for an alert, incident, on-call procedure, scheduled maintenance, or operational SOP. Applies a YAGNI preflight requiring the scenario to be real before producing the runbook. Does not produce feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not record architectural decisions — use architectural-decision-record. Does not create coding standards — use coding-standard.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Capture structured feedback on the Han skills and agents used in the current session and optionally post it as a GitHub issue to testdouble/han. Use at the end of any session where one or more han-* skills or agents ran, to rate a run, log what worked and what didn't, or submit observations for maintainers. Does not review code, investigate bugs, or research options; use code-review, investigate, or research for those. Does not provide feedback on skills or agents from non-Han plugins.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run a full pull request review and post review comments directly to the current branch's GitHub PR. Requires the gh CLI to be installed and a PR to already exist for the current branch. Use when you want review feedback posted to GitHub as PR comments. For local code review without posting to GitHub, use code-review instead. Does not write or update PR descriptions — use update-pr-description for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate a PR description from the current branch's changes against a GitHub PR, using the gh CLI. Use when writing, drafting, or updating pull request descriptions, PR summaries, or PR bodies. Does not review code or post review comments — use code-review for local review or post-code-review-to-pr for posting a review to GitHub.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Break a work-items.md file (produced by /plan-work-items) into independently-grabbable GitHub issues, one per slice, in each slice's target repo. Use when you want to turn a work-items file into GitHub issues, publish work items as issue tickets, or create implementation tickets that can be worked on and tracked on GitHub. Does not produce the work-items file itself — use plan-work-items to break a plan into work items first. Does not review code or post pull request comments — use post-code-review-to-pr for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turn a work-items.md file (produced by /plan-work-items) into Linear issues, one per slice, in a single target Linear team. Use when you want to publish work items as Linear issues, create implementation tickets to track in Linear, or push a broken-down plan into a Linear team. Requires a configured Linear MCP server and a target team. Reads the team's real workflow states, labels, Projects, and members and resolves every option against them before creating anything; defaults each issue to the team's initial state, unassigned, uncategorized, with no parent or Project unless you ask. Links within-file `Depends on` relationships as native Linear "blocked by" relations and annotates the source file so re-runs resume cleanly. Does not produce the work-items file itself — use plan-work-items first. Does not post to Jira — use work-items-to-jira. Does not post to GitHub — use work-items-to-issues.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Sharpens and stress-tests an existing plan file through multiple codebase-grounded review passes, editing it in place and recording every finding and iteration in cross-referenced companion files. Use this skill whenever the user wants to iterate on, refine, tighten, or improve a plan. Also use it when the user asks to verify, validate, or confirm feasibility of an approach. Does not implement plan steps, write test plans, review code, or investigate bugs, and does not generate new plans from scratch — use plan-a-feature for a new plan. Runs its review rounds to completion without pausing between them; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Plans an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Splits a body of context into a sequence of vertical-slice build phases where each phase is independently demonstrable to a real user and each builds on the previous. Use when the user wants to plan, sequence, phase, slice, break down, or order the build of a feature, capability, system, or initiative, and produces a plain-language phased build outline. Does not produce implementation detail — use plan-implementation. Does not specify behavior that has not been decided — use plan-a-feature. Does not perform gap analysis between two artifacts — use gap-analysis. Does not break a plan into independently-grabbable work items — use plan-work-items.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a feature implementation plan from an existing feature specification (or equivalent context) through a facilitated team conversation. Use when the user wants to plan how to implement, build, deliver, or ship a feature that has already been specified. Does not specify what the feature should do — use plan-a-feature first. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not refine or stress-test an already-written plan — use iterative-plan-review. Runs its resolution rounds to completion and holds its questions until after they finish; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Break a trusted implementation plan (or other provided context) into independently-grabbable, atomic work items, written to a single work-items.md file. Use when the user wants to convert a plan into work items, create implementation tickets or tasks, divide a plan into work units, or break the plan down into grabbable pieces. Do not use when there is no implementation plan yet or the plan is not yet trusted — use plan-implementation to produce the plan or iterative-plan-review to harden it first. Does not sequence work into demoable delivery phases — use plan-a-phased-build for that. Does not write code — use tdd to implement a work item.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a new Claude Code agent (subagent) from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the agent's design tree decision-by-decision — entity fit, domain focus and vocabulary, role identity, anti-patterns, description, model tier, tools, and self-containment — then reviews the finished agent against the plugin-building guidance and applies every fix it finds. Use when creating, authoring, scaffolding, designing, or drafting a new agent or subagent. Does not build a skill or slash command — use skill-builder. Does not serve, vendor, or refresh the authoring guidance itself — use guidance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Authoritative guidance for building Claude Code skills, agents, and plugins, plus init and update steps that install and refresh the plugin-building skills in the current repository. Use when you need the rules or best practices for a skill, agent, hook, or plugin — designing, reviewing, hardening, or checking one against the guidance. Run with `init` to vendor the guidance, skill-builder, and agent-builder skills into the current repository (so they run with no dependency on this plugin) plus a path-scoped rule index, or `update` to refresh an already-vendored copy. Does not run an interview to build a new skill or agent from scratch — use skill-builder or agent-builder. Does not write feature code, review application code, or build non-plugin features.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a new Claude Code skill from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the skill's design tree decision-by-decision — entity fit, use cases, name, description, workflow steps, tools, and progressive-disclosure layout — then reviews the finished skill against the plugin-building guidance and applies every fix it finds. Use when creating, authoring, scaffolding, designing, or drafting a new skill or slash command. Does not build an agent or subagent — use agent-builder. Does not serve, vendor, or refresh the authoring guidance itself — use guidance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Convert a stakeholder summary markdown file into a single self-contained HTML executive report — bottom line and decision asks up front, supporting detail later — styled with a Test Double-derived palette and self-contained mermaid diagrams. Use when the user wants to turn a stakeholder summary, executive summary, or business summary into an HTML report, generate an HTML version of a summary doc, or produce a shareable HTML file from a summary markdown. Produces an HTML sibling file only; does not publish anything.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIAL_ID and data path.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。