Moe-s-Tavern

Use before calling moe.complete_step on the final step of a task, and again before moe.complete_task. Forces you to read your own diff as an attacker, not an author. Catches concurrency bugs, null-deref, embarrassing assumptions before QA does.

Use when writing, reviewing, or debugging modern C++ (C++11 and beyond) — .cpp/.cc/.cxx/.h/.hpp files, CMake builds, smart pointers, RAII, move semantics, templates, STL, or concurrency.

Use before referencing any function, model, method, relationship, constant, or import in a plan or implementation. Verifies things actually exist in the codebase before building on top of them. Eliminates an entire class of hallucinated-API bugs.

Use when an architect is turning an epic into a set of tasks (moe.create_task), before planning any single one. Covers where to cut the seams, how to size and order tasks, what each task's Definition of Done must carry, and the mandatory final integration-and-hardening task. Distinct from moe-planning, which plans the steps inside one task.

Use when an architect is turning a Moe task into an implementation plan via moe.submit_plan. Provides the canonical 8-phase template (plan, explore, tests, minimum impl, verify, document, adversarial review, QA loop), rules for when to skip phases on trivial tasks, and where the verification gate belongs — once at the end of a task, and at full scope only on the epic's final task.

Use when reviewing a task in REVIEW status as the QA agent. Provides the structured decision flow for moe.qa_approve vs moe.qa_reject, with rejectionDetails that drive a clean fix on the worker side.

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

Use before moe.complete_task. Runs the suite the plan named — narrow for a mid-epic task, full for the epic's final task — to confirm nothing unrelated broke. The goal is zero regressions. Better to find out now than in a QA reject comment.

Controls and monitors ROS 2 robots directly via rclpy CLI. Use for ANY ROS 2 robot task: topics (subscribe, publish, capture images, find by type), services (list, call), actions (list, send goals), parameters (get, set, presets), nodes, lifecycle management, controllers (ros2_control), Nav2 navigation (go, cancel, status, waypoints, initial-pose), diagnostics, battery, system health checks, TF frames, bags, logs, and more. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full ROS 2 operation surface. Never tell the user you cannot do something ROS 2-related without checking this skill first.

Use when designing for scale, availability, or distribution — load balancing, caching, sharding, replication, CAP trade-offs, microservices, or any high-availability/high-throughput architecture decision.

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - creates isolated git worktrees with smart directory selection and safety verification

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

Use before calling moe.complete_step on the final step of a task, and again before moe.complete_task. Forces you to read your own diff as an attacker, not an author. Catches concurrency bugs, null-deref, embarrassing assumptions before QA does.

Use when an architect is turning an epic into a set of tasks (moe.create_task), before planning any single one. Covers where to cut the seams, how to size and order tasks, what each task's Definition of Done must carry, and the mandatory final integration-and-hardening task. Distinct from moe-planning, which plans the steps inside one task.

Use when an architect is turning a Moe task into an implementation plan via moe.submit_plan. Provides the canonical 8-phase template (plan, explore, tests, minimum impl, verify, document, adversarial review, QA loop), rules for when to skip phases on trivial tasks, and where the verification gate belongs — once at the end of a task, and at full scope only on the epic's final task.

Use when reviewing a task in REVIEW status as the QA agent. Provides the structured decision flow for moe.qa_approve vs moe.qa_reject, with rejectionDetails that drive a clean fix on the worker side.

Use before moe.complete_task. Runs the suite the plan named — narrow for a mid-epic task, full for the epic's final task — to confirm nothing unrelated broke. The goal is zero regressions. Better to find out now than in a QA reject comment.

Use when writing, reviewing, or debugging modern C++ (C++11 and beyond) — .cpp/.cc/.cxx/.h/.hpp files, CMake builds, smart pointers, RAII, move semantics, templates, STL, or concurrency.

Controls and monitors ROS 2 robots directly via rclpy CLI. Use for ANY ROS 2 robot task: topics (subscribe, publish, capture images, find by type), services (list, call), actions (list, send goals), parameters (get, set, presets), nodes, lifecycle management, controllers (ros2_control), Nav2 navigation (go, cancel, status, waypoints, initial-pose), diagnostics, battery, system health checks, TF frames, bags, logs, and more. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full ROS 2 operation surface. Never tell the user you cannot do something ROS 2-related without checking this skill first.

Use when designing for scale, availability, or distribution — load balancing, caching, sharding, replication, CAP trade-offs, microservices, or any high-availability/high-throughput architecture decision.

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

Use before referencing any function, model, method, relationship, constant, or import in a plan or implementation. Verifies things actually exist in the codebase before building on top of them. Eliminates an entire class of hallucinated-API bugs.

Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - creates isolated git worktrees with smart directory selection and safety verification

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always