Use when system, user, repository, domain, AI-Psychiatry, skill, memory, or task-state instructions appear incompatible.
Skills in this repository
ihabkhaled/AI-Psychiatry - Page 2
SkillsMP has collected 79 skills from ihabkhaled/AI-Psychiatry. Open a skill to review its source and details.
ihabkhaled/AI-PsychiatryShowing 39 of 79 collected skills.
Use when adjacent work is called required without dependency proof, or inconvenient required work is marked optional.
Use when different commands, tools, runners, plans, or agents repeat the same hypothesis and evidence target.
Use when implementation, parking, blocking, strategy switching, or completion happens before critical understanding and evidence exist.
Use when analysis paralysis, speculative branching, repeated replanning, premature architecture work, or indecision blocks a reversible implementation or test.
Use when objective switching, novelty chasing, repeated context switching, optional branches, or ADHD-like distraction as a behavioral analogy interrupts delivery.
Use when debugging, architecture inspection, research, or repository exploration risks becoming open-ended, recursive, speculative, or disconnected from a decision.
Use when requested behavior appears complete, remaining work is optional, perfectionism delays delivery, or the agent continues auditing, refining, testing, or researching after proof.
Use when a long session, large tool output, repeated discussion, or handoff needs a compact state that preserves decisions and enables continuation.
Use when active context is large, stale, contradictory, repeatedly reread, or no longer represents current source and task state.
Use when choosing which repository instructions, architecture, domain knowledge, files, tests, or deep guidance to load for a task without reading everything.
Use when reviewers or judges repeat rounds, invent requirements, block on style, expand scope, or continue after correctness, security, regression, and explicit requirements are satisfied.
Use when no productive next action can be selected because dependencies, authority, contradictory constraints, missing access, or unresolved evidence block progress.
Use when files, services, commands, tests, APIs, configuration, architecture, publication, or runtime results are assumed without an authoritative repository or tool source.
Use when a task needs explicit control of objective, scope, priority, nesting, retries, verification, progress, drift, recovery, or termination.
Use after a non-trivial, recurring, or expensive failure when a concise evidenced lesson could prevent future repeated investigation.
Use when the requested outcome is unclear, silently changing, being reinterpreted by discoveries, or disconnected from the active implementation.
Use when work moves to another agent, session, person, or environment and the recipient needs enough state to continue without a sprawling narrative.
Use when repository architecture, rules, skills, commands, context routing, manifests, or generated AI knowledge change and dependent sources may become stale.
Use when activity is high but requirements, blockers, tests, and deliverables remain unchanged across repeated edit, search, test, review, or planning cycles.
Use when commands, searches, file reads, edits, tests, critics, plans, context reloads, or strategies repeat without new evidence or acceptance progress.
Use when deciding whether task discoveries, decisions, preferences, architecture, failures, or lessons deserve durable repository memory.
Use when two or more agents work concurrently, delegation may recurse, responsibilities overlap, dependencies can deadlock, or a coordinator must preserve scope and termination.
Use when status is unclear, activity is high, completion estimates feel unreliable, or the agent may be mistaking reading, reasoning, tools, or churn for progress.
Use when packages, services, ownership boundaries, entrypoints, tests, commands, or dependencies changed and the compact repository map needs a focused update.
Use when continuing work from saved task state, a compacted session, a handoff, or a new agent without rereading the entire repository.
Use when newly discovered work, technical debt, refactors, audits, optimizations, or reviewer suggestions threaten to expand the user-authorized task.
Use when three same-strategy attempts fail, two approaches oscillate without evidence, or the current abstraction and evidence source cannot resolve the blocker.
Use when selecting development and final validation commands so evidence is sufficient without repeatedly running expensive or irrelevant suites.
Use when beginning any plan, audit, investigation, modification, review, test, or expensive tool action before the primary objective and completion conditions are explicit.
Use when deciding what evidence is required, whether previous proof remains valid, or whether repeated testing has become reassurance rather than necessary verification.
Use when the agent changes objectives, chases optional discoveries, context-switches repeatedly, abandons the active item, or shows ADHD-like distraction as a behavioral analogy.
Use when requested behavior appears complete, optional polishing continues, perfectionism delays delivery, reviewers suggest non-blocking work, or the agent cannot stop after proof.
Use when repository claims are unsupported, searches find no source, the agent assumes files or services exist, publication or test status is uncertain, or a speculative architecture may become implementation.
Use when a coding agent is distracted, overthinking, repeatedly checking, recursively investigating, hallucinating repository facts, looping, expanding scope, or failing to stop after completion.
Use when tasks open tasks inside tasks, investigation depth exceeds three, subagents delegate recursively, a local bug becomes architecture redesign, or box-inside-box behavior prevents delivery.
Use when actions repeat without progress, strategies oscillate, the same failure reaches three attempts, four cycles produce no outcome, or no valid next action exists.
Use when an agent reruns equivalent checks, seeks reassurance after valid proof, repeats critics, cannot accept sufficient evidence, or shows OCD-like checking as a behavioral analogy.
Use when analysis paralysis, speculative branch explosion, repeated replanning, architecture rabbit holes, or indecision prevents a bounded implementation or evidence-producing action.