Use when asked to rewrite or format text in the user's voice, "make this sound like me", "match my voice", "de-stiffen this", when text "reads too corporate / businessy / stiff", to "strip the em-dashes / agent typography", or to draft a Slack announcement, PR body, or doc in the user's voice. Also /match-voice.
Use when writing or rewriting reader-facing technical text — documentation, READMEs, runbooks, procedures, error messages, release notes, incident reports, API guides, agent/system prompts — or when asked to "de-slop", "make this readable", "simplify this doc", "write for non-native readers", "apply STE", "Simplified Technical English", or "ASD-STE100", or to prepare text for translation. Also use to CHECK such text for clarity violations. Do NOT use for chat replies, PR/review comments, or commit messages (that is terse-output), nor for marketing, brand, or personal-voice writing (that is match-voice) — this skill deletes persuasion by design.
Use when the user asks for a deep review, full review, comprehensive review, production readiness assessment, full audit, multi-domain audit, "security and reliability and code review", or "review everything". Also use when the user explicitly requests performance review alongside the comprehensive request (e.g. "include perf", "review including performance", "deep review with perf"); without that explicit phrasing, performance is excluded. Do NOT use for narrow single-domain reviews (use the matching review-* skill directly).
Review code architecture (SOLID, design patterns, package design, coupling, testability), Go best practices, and protobuf/API design using manual analysis and static analysis tools (gocyclo, staticcheck, buf). Use when the user asks for a code review, architecture review, Go review, protobuf review, SOLID review, or design pattern review.
Use when the user wants to execute an approved implementation plan and says any of "do it" (with a plan in scope), "lets do it" / "let's do it", "confirmed" (as approval to proceed on a plan), "implement the plan", "implement this", "execute the plan", "start implementing", "work through the plan", "implement the next phase", "build it out", "knock out the plan", or "/implement-plan PATH". Also use when a plan file (`./.plans/PLAN.md`, any `./.plans/*.md`, or legacy `./PLAN.md` / `./docs/plans/*.md`) is present and the user signals readiness to begin coding. Do NOT use when the user is still discussing, refining, or asking questions about the plan, nor when no plan exists — short imperatives like "do it" or "confirmed" alone are ambiguous; verify a plan is in scope before activating.
Use when the user asks to review the plan, sanity-check the plan, vet the plan, evaluate the plan, "is this plan ready", feasibility check on a plan, "review-plan PATH", or when another skill (like implement-plan) requests pre-flight plan evaluation before execution. Do NOT use when no plan file is in scope (the user is likely asking for a summary — use Read instead), nor when the user is asking about source code (use review-code), nor when the user wants documentation review (use review-documentation).
Use when adding or evaluating a project dependency in any language, phrases like "should I use X library", "evaluate <package>", "what library for Y", or when reviewing a PR that touches a manifest (go.mod, package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, Gemfile, mix.exs, composer.json). Also use when comparing alternatives, choosing between major versions of the same package, or when review-security / review-code encounters a new dep in scope. Produces a GO/CAUTION/NO-GO verdict with the canonical package coordinate to use. Language-specific quirks (Go's semantic import versioning /v2 paths, npm scoping, etc.) live in references/.
Perform a security review using STRIDE threat modeling, OWASP Top 10 analysis, and automated scanning (gosec, govulncheck). Use when the user asks for a security review, threat model, OWASP analysis, or security audit.