existential-birds

Guides architectural decisions for LangGraph applications. Use when deciding between LangGraph vs alternatives, choosing state management strategies, designing multi-agent systems, or selecting persistence and streaming approaches.

Create PydanticAI agents with type-safe dependencies, structured outputs, and proper configuration. Use when building AI agents, creating chat systems, or integrating LLMs with Pydantic validation.

Implement dependency injection in PydanticAI agents using RunContext and deps_type. Use when agents need database connections, API clients, user context, or any external resources.

Configure LLM providers, use fallback models, handle streaming, and manage model settings in PydanticAI. Use when selecting models, implementing resilience, or optimizing API calls.

Register and implement PydanticAI tools with proper context handling, type annotations, and docstrings. Use when adding tool capabilities to agents, implementing function calling, or creating agent actions.

Vercel AI SDK for building chat interfaces with streaming. Use when implementing useChat hook, handling tool calls, streaming responses, or building chat UI. Triggers on useChat, @ai-sdk/react, UIMessage, ChatStatus, streamText, toUIMessageStreamResponse, addToolOutput, onToolCall, sendMessage.

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on \"write the ADR\", \"format as MADR\", \"check ADR quality\", \"mark gaps in ADR\". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extra

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on \"analyze agent architecture\", \"12-factor audit\", \"how compliant is this agent\", or \"evaluate this LLM app\". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists \u2014 this perfor

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: \"analyze these docs\", \"scan my project for context\", \"read the docs folder\", \"summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/\", \"extract context from docs/\", \"what's in this folder\", \"go read everything in X and tell me what's there\". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prf

Use when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: \"brainstorm this\", \"I have an idea for...\", \"help me think through this project\", \"what should I build\", \"spec this out\". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review st

Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on \"which repo is better\", \"compare these implementations\", \"evaluate both solutions\", \"rank these codebases\", or \"judge which approach wins\". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality \u2014 use co

Use when the user wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: \"work backwards\", \"write a PRFAQ\", \"press release first\", \"is this idea worth building\", \"pressure-test this concept\", \"filter this before brainstorm\", \"is this a real product\". Also catches solution-first pitche

Use as the follow-up to brainstorm-beagle when a spec has an Open Questions section (or quietly carries latent gaps) that need closing before planning or implementation can begin. Triggers on: \"resolve the open questions\", \"close the gaps in this spec\", \"research the open items\", \"finalize my spec\", \"make this spec implementation-ready\", \"answer the TBDs\". Also triggers whenever the us

Use when the user wants to build or think through a strategy via guided conversation \u2014 for a company, product, team, career, or initiative. Triggers on \"help me figure out our direction\", \"what should we focus on\", strategic planning, competitive positioning, go-to-market strategy. Also catches indirect requests like prioritization struggles or \"we have too many priorities\". Does NOT re

Use when reviewing, critiquing, or stress-testing an existing strategy document. Evaluates seven dimensions \u2014 diagnosis quality, guiding policy strength, action coherence, assumption exposure, falsifiability \u2014 with optional 7S, Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard, and Hoshin Kanri lenses. Triggers on: review my strategy, poke holes in this plan, what's weak here, strategy audit, red team thi

Use when the user wants web research: gathering cited, multi-angle evidence on a specific question. Triggers on: \"research X for me\", \"do web research on\", \"look up sources for\", \"find citations for\", \"gather evidence on\", \"what does the web say about X\". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview

Use when you want to generate Architecture Decision Records from this session. Triggers on \"write ADRs\", \"document our decisions\", \"create decision records\", \"record the choices we made\". Also useful after design discussions where decisions were reached but not documented. Does NOT extract decisions alone (use adr-decision-extraction) or provide MADR template (use adr-writing). Orchestrate

Use when you have a finalized `beagle-analysis:brainstorm-beagle` spec at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md` and need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan before any code is written. Triggers on: \"write a plan\", \"plan this spec\", \"turn the spec into a plan\", \"now plan the implementation\", \"/write-plan\". Reads the spec, designs the file structure, decomposes work into 2-5 minute TD

Creates a pull request with a standardized description template.

Fetch unresolved review comments from a PR and evaluate with receive-feedback skill

Applies fixes from a prior review-llm-artifacts run, with safe/risky classification. Respects verify-llm-artifacts output when present to skip false positives.

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts in codebases. Identifies test quality issues, dead code, over-abstraction, and verbose LLM style patterns. Use when cleaning up AI-generated code or reviewing for agent-introduced cruft.

Optimize prompts for code-related tasks following Claude best practices. Use when refining prompts for implementation, debugging, refactoring, code review, or testing.

Process external code review feedback with technical rigor. Use when receiving feedback from another LLM, human reviewer, or CI tool. Verifies claims before implementing, tracks disposition.

Schema for tracking code review outcomes to enable feedback-driven skill improvement. Use when logging review results or analyzing review quality.

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts by spawning four parallel subagents over the project or changed files. Scans files changed since main by default; use --all for full-project scan. Triggers on LLM cruft cleanup, agent-generated code review, dead code sweeps, test-quality passes, or when the user asks to scan the whole repo.

Review implementation plans for parallelization, TDD, types, libraries, and security before execution

Analyzes feedback logs to identify patterns and suggest improvements to review skills. Use when you have accumulated feedback data and want to improve review accuracy.

Reviews PRs that add or modify Claude Code skills, checking structural validity, design quality, and marketplace consistency. Use when reviewing skill file changes, auditing SKILL.md quality, or running automated skill PR reviews via daydream.

Repo-wide structural-maintainability review — code-judo restructurings, 1k-line file guard, anti-spaghetti branching, canonical-layer enforcement, anti-magic abstractions, explicit type/boundary contracts.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Create Claude Code skills with best practices, structure, validation, and testing. Use when designing or refining skills, prompts, references, or supporting files.

Produce a comprehensive prompt that hands off the current session's work to a fresh session for sub-agent-orchestrated execution. Use when the user wants to execute discussed/planned work in a new session, run a job to completion via sub-agents, or generate a portable handoff prompt with per-task verification. Triggers on "/subagent-prompt", "give me a prompt to run this in a new session", "hand t

Confirms or rejects findings from review-llm-artifacts before deletes or risky refactors. Loads review-verification-protocol-style checks per finding. Use after a review run, when the user wants to reduce false positives, before fix-llm-artifacts on dead code, or when validating a full-project scan.

Core technical documentation writing principles for voice, tone, structure, and LLM-friendly patterns. Use when writing or reviewing any documentation.

Generate first-draft technical documentation from code analysis

Verify documentation coverage and generate missing docs interactively

Explanation documentation patterns for understanding-oriented content - conceptual guides that explain why things work the way they do

How-To guide patterns for documentation - task-oriented guides for users with specific goals

Rewrite AI-generated developer text to sound human — fix inflated language, filler, tautological docs, and robotic tone. Use after review-ai-writing identifies issues.

Analyze and improve existing documentation using Diataxis principles

Detect AI-generated writing patterns in developer text — docs, docstrings, commit messages, PR descriptions, and code comments. Use when reviewing any text artifact for authenticity and clarity.

Tutorial patterns for documentation - learning-oriented guides that teach through guided doing

Reviews Elixir code for idiomatic patterns, OTP basics, and documentation. Use when reviewing .ex/.exs files, checking pattern matching, GenServer usage, or module documentation.

Reviews Elixir documentation for completeness, quality, and ExDoc best practices. Use when auditing @moduledoc, @doc, @spec coverage, doctest correctness, and cross-reference usage in .ex files.

Reviews Elixir code for performance issues including GenServer bottlenecks, memory usage, and concurrency patterns. Use when reviewing high-throughput code or investigating performance issues.

Reviews Elixir code for security vulnerabilities including code injection, atom exhaustion, and secret handling. Use when reviewing code handling user input, external data, or sensitive configuration.

Guides writing Elixir documentation with @moduledoc, @doc, @typedoc, doctests, cross-references, and metadata. Use when adding or improving documentation in .ex files.