Menü
Use when walking through code, documents, or changes with the user where both perspectives contribute — the agent sees structural patterns, the user sees design intent.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
Review the conversation for threads that were started but not followed — ideas mentioned in passing, decisions deferred implicitly, tensions named but not resolved. Use when taking stock, before saving, or whenever the user wants to know what's been left on the table.
Use when drafting, updating, or reviewing a GitHub pull request title or body, including PR creation flows that need reviewer-facing prose. Follow the repo PR template when present, preserve the user's or project's voice, and route validation/session details to the right surface.
End-of-day close: the user is stepping away and won't serve as a bridge. Full collaborative triage, working-style reflection, and anticipatory framing for the next day. Invoke with /session-close.
Start a new session cycle by reconciling Project Orientation, restoring repo context, and resuming the active bet or opening vision steering when selection genuinely changed.
End-of-cycle transition: interpret the session, triage dangling threads with the user, and prepare SESSION-TRAJECTORY.md for the next cycle. The user is still around and serves as a light bridge. Invoke with /session-rest.
Keeps SESSION-TRAJECTORY.md warm as work progresses and offers checkpoints at natural boundaries. Saving is not stopping.
| name | joint-reading |
| description | Use when walking through code, documents, or changes with the user where both perspectives contribute — the agent sees structural patterns, the user sees design intent. |
| user-invocable | false |
Two people examining the same material together, where each perceives things the other doesn't, and the conversation is anchored to specific locations in the shared artifact.
The material may belong to one party or neither. What matters is that both are genuinely discovering through the shared examination. Even the party who created the material sees it differently through the other's perception — that's what distinguishes joint reading from presenting.
Joint reading has a spatial quality: you're moving through something together, pointing at specific locations, and what you each notice is different.
Two doctors looking at the same imaging scan. The radiologist sees structural anomalies — patterns in tissue density, shapes that shouldn't be there. The referring physician sees the clinical context — which anomalies matter given this patient's symptoms, history, and what they're actually worried about. Both are looking at the same image. Neither is explaining it to the other. The conversation is anchored to specific features of the scan, and what they produce together is a clinical interpretation that neither could reach alone.
A songwriter playing a new track for their producer. The songwriter wrote it and knows what they intended. But listening alongside the producer, they hear their own track differently. The producer says "that transition at 1:40 — the energy drops." The songwriter hadn't noticed because they knew what was coming next. The producer's fresh ears reveal something about the songwriter's own work. And in the conversation that follows — anchored to specific moments in the recording — both arrive at an understanding of the track that neither had going in.
A book club where everyone read the same text. One person noticed the narrative structure — how the pacing changed in the middle section. Another noticed the political context — allusions the author was making. A third noticed a character's arc that contradicts the ending. Nobody is teaching. The discussion is grounded in specific passages, and the understanding that emerges is a composite of perceptions that were always there in the text but that no single reader caught.
A real estate agent and a contractor walking through a house together. The agent sees market value — layout appeal, what buyers notice, how the light hits the kitchen. The contractor sees structural reality — the crack that means foundation settling, the water stain that means a roof problem, the wiring that predates code. They're pointing at the same kitchen. One sees "$50K in added value with an island here." The other sees "these joists can't support an island without reinforcement." Neither perception is more valid. The house is both a market asset and a physical structure, and a complete understanding requires both.
Joint reading is collaborative grounding anchored to shared material. The agent's perception and the user's situated knowledge combine through the shared artifact they're both looking at.
Composes well with interpretive synthesis (the big-picture revision during a walkthrough is joint reading + interpretive synthesis). Composes well with diagnostic questioning when the reading surfaces ambiguities that need the user's input. The walkthrough skill uses joint reading as its primary stance.
