Produces a ready-to-run ast-grep YAML rule that searches, lints, or auto-rewrites code via tree-sitter AST patterns, delivered with positive + negative fixtures and an exact validation command. Use for lint rules, codemods, code modernizations, and API migrations with auto-fix. Trigger whenever the user mentions ast-grep, sg scan, sgconfig, tree-sitter patterns, AST matching, structural search-and-replace, or a codemod — and ALSO when they describe the task without naming the tool, e.g. "find every call to X and rewrite it", "replace all console.log with logger across the repo", "write a lint rule for this pattern", "upgrade all usages of the old SDK", or "migrate this API everywhere". Chinese triggers: 写 ast-grep 规则, 结构化搜索替换, 批量改写代码, 代码迁移规则, codemod, 写个 lint 规则, 语法树匹配, 自动改写代码.
Produces a severity-rated (高/中/低) Clean Code findings report across 7 dimensions (naming, function size/SRP, duplication/DRY, over-engineering/YAGNI, magic numbers, structural clarity, project conventions), each with a location and a behavior-preserving refactor suggestion — never changing functionality. Use whenever the user asks for a code review, quality check, refactor advice, or code-smell / Clean Code analysis, OR points at a file/function/diff and asks if it is well-written, too long, too repetitive, over-engineered, or poorly named — even casually, and even if they never say "review" ("I just wrote this, look it over", "does this look good before I commit"). Trigger on 代码体检, 代码质量, 重构检查, 代码审查, 这段代码写得怎么样, 帮我看看代码有没有问题, 有没有坏味道, 这函数是不是太长了, 命名规范吗, 魔法数字, 重复代码, 过度设计, and English like "is this code clean", "any code smells", "check this file".
Generate a magazine-quality visual card as a single self-contained HTML file (embedded CSS, Swiss-grid + bold-type design system), then screenshot it to a shareable PNG and hand back both files. Use this whenever the user wants content turned into a visually rich card or shareable image — even if they don't say the word "card." Triggers: make/create/generate/design a visual card, info card, knowledge card, quote card, social card, summary/takeaway/cheatsheet card; 信息卡, 知识卡片, 金句卡, 语录卡, 做张卡片, 设计一张卡片, 把这段内容做成卡片, 把要点排成一张图, 总结成一张图, 小红书封面, 公众号封面图, 朋友圈配图. Prefer this over generic HTML/frontend skills when the goal is one decorative card image (for multi-section reports use hai-visual-report).
Audit and design entity data models into a field-by-field markdown report: a target-vs-current audit table per entity, a classification of every field (table column / config blob / runtime-computed / remove), a grouped migration change list, and design-decision justifications — each field run through five cuts (exist? store or compute? column or config? system or content? what form to store?). Use this whenever the user reasons about what fields an entity should have or where they should live, even if they never say "audit": designing a data model, checking PRD fields against a DB schema or backend types, deciding store-vs-compute or column-vs-jsonb, judging whether a field is redundant, spotting a bloated/over-modeled entity, or planning a schema migration. Trigger even when they just paste a PRD, schema, or Prisma/SQLAlchemy model and ask "are the fields right", "what's missing", "should this be a column or jsonb", "is this field even needed". Also on 实体建模, 数据模型审核, 字段审查, 字段太多了, 这个表设计得对吗, PRD 对齐, 模型设计, 该存还是
Produces a bold, high-altitude direction judgment (格局判断): a sharp thesis on the right target model, a kill-list of what to delete / merge / split / reframe, a Conservative-vs-Clean-vs-Staged options table, and a verification path (first proof point + falsifier) that keeps the bold call testable. Use whenever the user wants to think bigger, open the design space, or challenge a conservative / incremental / over-compatible proposal — proactively, even when unnamed. Triggers: 打开格局, 格局太小, 你格局小了, 拔高一点, 站高一点, 别太保守, 太碎了, 别老想着兼容, 别被重构难度绑架, 大方向; and English "too incremental / too safe", "play it bigger", "greenfield this", "what if there were no legacy". Once the bold direction needs feasibility / landing pressure-testing, route to goudi.
Pressure-tests an ambitious proposal and returns a grounded landing judgment (go / shrink / pause / reject / validate-first) with one minimum-viable first move, an explicit cut list, success/failure signals, and a stop rule. Use whenever a discussion has more vision than executable grounding, or the user asks how to land/ship a bold idea, define the smallest first step, scope down, pressure-test feasibility, price risk, or set a stop/rollback rule — even if they never name the skill. Triggers on 苟帝, 落地, 先落地, 怎么落地, 别太飘, 太理想化, 收一收, 砍范围, 可执行, 可验证, 最小可行, MVP, 止损, 回滚, 风险有多大, and on "make this real / be realistic / what do I do first / is this plan feasible" — including right after a geju or architecture session. Use geju instead when the goal is to open the frame and think bigger.
Produce an evidence-grounded architecture review or design-decision critique — an architecture map, the painful complexity center, 3-6 chosen review lenses, ranked findings with file:line evidence, why-not alternatives, and a red/blue adversarial check — grounded in John Ousterhout's "A Philosophy of Software Design" (APoSD). Trigger whenever the user asks about architecture or system-design quality: module/package boundaries, abstraction depth, deep vs shallow modules, information hiding, dependency direction, change amplification / blast radius, ownership, error boundaries, or whether to split / merge / combine modules — including 架构审查, 架构 review, 模块边界, 依赖方向, 抽象太浅, 复杂度太高, 这个设计合不合理, or an APoSD / Ousterhout / "philosophy of software design" review. Be pushy: trigger even when they only say "is this structure ok", "these modules feel tangled", "should I split this", "review my system design", or "why does touching X force edits everywhere", not just when they say "architecture review". For naming use hai-nami
Audits documentation against the actual code, config, schemas, and API contracts and produces a severity-ranked (P0-P3 + needs-evidence) report of every stale or mismatched claim, each with a doc location, a code/contract reference, the impact, and a minimal suggested fix. Use whenever the user wants to verify README/docs/API docs against the implementation, check whether docs fell behind, or confirm setup steps / env vars / endpoints / examples still match the code after a rename or refactor — even on casual asks like "是不是过时了", "README 和代码对不上", "readme 还准吗", "我们改了接口文档忘了更新吧", "audit our docs", or "do the docs still match". Trigger on 文档和代码一致性, 文档是否过时, 文档跟实现不一致, 这个 API 文档还准不准, openapi 和文档对得上吗, verify docs against code, docs vs implementation. For doc-vs-doc internal contradictions with no code comparison, use hai-audit-docs-internally instead.