Audit and improve web accessibility following WCAG 2.1 guidelines. Use when asked to "improve accessibility", "a11y audit", "WCAG compliance", "screen reader support", "keyboard navigation", or "make accessible".
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。
Methodology for writing complete, unambiguous IA, BE, and FE specification documents in the CFSA pipeline. Covers completeness testing, progressive section writing, cross-reference checking, and ambiguity gate application.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
This skill encodes the shared writing methodology for IA, BE, and FE spec documents in the CFSA pipeline, and is invoked by all write-*-spec-write.md and decompose-architecture-validate.md workflows.
Write one section at a time in document order. Before writing section N+1, re-read section N and verify it against the upstream source document:
ideation-index.md (+ the relevant domain folder's *-index.md, *-cx.md, and feature files) and architecture-design.mdHard rules:
After writing each section, apply this test:
"Would two independent, competent developers reading only this section produce the same implementation?"
If the answer is "probably not," the section is incomplete regardless of how much text it contains.
Apply the test to each element type in turn:
A section passes when no element requires a developer to make an undocumented choice.
After completing the full draft, perform two cross-reference passes:
For every data model entity and every state transition in the IA shard, verify a corresponding BE spec section exists. For every field in an IA data model, verify it appears in a BE endpoint request or response schema or a storage schema.
Document each gap as:
COVERAGE GAP: IA shard [name] § [section] → no corresponding BE spec section found.
For every BE endpoint, verify every response field is referenced in the FE spec (in a component prop, display element, or form field). Verify every error code the endpoint can return has an explicit FE handling entry (error boundary, toast, inline error state).
Document each gap as:
MAPPING GAP: BE endpoint [name] field [field] → not referenced in FE spec.
Hard-stop spec writing and raise to the user if any of the following are true:
(a) A requirement cannot be resolved from .memory/wiki/specs/ideation/ideation-index.md, .memory/wiki/specs/architecture-design.md, or the upstream spec document for the current layer — it is not a judgment the spec writer can make.
(b) Two valid, meaningfully different implementations exist for a requirement and neither is obviously more correct given the upstream context.
(c) A security or access control decision requires explicit product confirmation — never silently default a permission, role binding, or data exposure boundary.
When triggered, write:
AMBIGUITY GATE: [layer] § [section] — [requirement] — [two options if applicable] — awaiting user decision.
A spec section is complete when all four element classes are fully specified:
(a) Fields — every field has name, type, nullable/optional flag, default value or "no default", and validation constraints.
(b) Endpoints — every endpoint has method, path, auth requirement, request schema, success response with HTTP code and body shape, and all error codes with their conditions.
(c) State transitions — every transition has a named trigger event, a pre-condition, a post-condition, and any side-effects (emails sent, events emitted, records written).
(d) Permissions — every access control rule specifies subject role, target resource, allowed operation(s), and the condition under which access is denied.
pipeline-rubrics — Use when you need the formal scoring rubrics for evaluating spec quality across all five pipeline layers. The rubric in Step 5 of this skill defines what completeness means; pipeline-rubrics provides the scoring framework for quantifying it during audits.technical-writer — Use when the spec content is complete but needs clarity, structure, or formatting improvements. This skill governs what to write; technical-writer governs how to present it for maximum readability and consumability.まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Audit and improve web accessibility following WCAG 2.1 guidelines. Use when asked to "improve accessibility", "a11y audit", "WCAG compliance", "screen reader support", "keyboard navigation", or "make accessible".
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。
Structured methodology for adversarial thinking — generating attack scenarios, abuse cases, race conditions, and security edge cases against specs and implementations. Produces spec-level gap items, not code-level fixes.
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。
Orchestrate multiple Antigravity skills through guided workflows for SaaS MVP delivery, security audits, AI agent builds, and browser QA.
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。
Master REST and GraphQL API design principles to build intuitive, scalable, and maintainable APIs that delight developers. Use when designing new APIs, reviewing API specifications, or establishing API design standards.
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。
Manage API versioning and evolution with URL/header/query strategies, deprecation workflows, breaking change classification, sunset headers, and consumer-driven contract testing. Use when designing versioning strategy, deprecating endpoints, or evolving API contracts.
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 codebase structure, data flow, module relationships, and key patterns to generate and maintain a living architecture document (ARCHITECTURE.md).
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。