fb-skills

Analyze a list of open questions and suggest up to three answers for each. Use when the user wants options, recommendations, or help resolving multiple unanswered questions.

Deliver a PRD through orchestrated task decomposition, implementation agents, and independent QA. Use when every acceptance criterion must be verified before completion.

Explain changes made yesterday as a simple list. Use when user asks what changed yesterday, what was implemented yesterday, or needs a non-technical change summary from recent git work.

Pressure-test, reduce, and rewrite prompts for GPT-5.5. Use when the user asks to grill, audit, critique, harden, improve, optimize, simplify, de-noise, or rewrite a prompt, system prompt, developer instruction, agent playbook, or tool-use workflow specifically for GPT-5.5; especially when it may contain no-op instructions, contradictions, vague rules, missing success criteria, missing output rules, missing validation, unsupported claims, or unclear stop rules.

Build shared understanding before action by interviewing the user about ambiguous implementation, product, planning, or design tasks. Use when goal, scope, constraints, risks, success criteria, done state, or next action are unclear; when user wants a thinking partner; or when user needs a handoff-ready task prompt. Do not write PRDs; use to-prd for product requirements.

Detect sloppy-code signals with repo-wide search metrics and sampled evidence. Use when asked to audit codebase quality, "vibe coding", `isRecord`, broad `Record<string, unknown>` guards, fallback usage, excessive null guards, non-null assertions, unsafe type assertions, `node:*` imports in browser/shared code, swallowed errors, TODO debt, or code smell hotspots before refactoring.

Estimate line additions and deletions from a PRD or spec by reading the requirements and inspecting the target repo. Use when the user asks for changed LOC, additions, deletions, diff size, PR size, or implementation size before building.

Discuss code critically before or instead of editing. Use when user asks for a compact opinion on code, a diff, snippet, design, naming, logic, simplicity, structure, or maintainability, and wants findings plus smallest useful fixes. For formal risk-ranked pull request review use code-reviewer; for architecture candidates use architecture-review; for actual cleanup edits use code-simplifier or refactoring.

Review code for concrete defects and ranked risk. Use when asked to review diffs, pull requests, changed files, snippets, or implementation plans for bugs, security, performance, UX, API contracts, tests, concurrency, error handling, state/data hazards, accessibility, dependencies, or observability. Produces findings first with file:line evidence. For factual diff explanation use explain-diff; for architecture-only review use architecture-review.

Name code identifiers clearly and consistently. Use when naming or reviewing variables, functions, booleans, classes, files, modules, React hooks, event handlers, props callbacks, error values, and domain concepts; reducing ambiguity, duplicated context, contractions, or misleading singular/plural names. For larger code-quality review use code-reviewer.

Explain code diffs in Markdown, one changed file at a time. Use when user asks to explain unstaged changes, staged changes, a commit, commit range, branch diff, PR diff, or pasted diff. Ask for diff source when missing.

Reframe product strategy around customer progress with Jobs to Be Done. Use when researching motivations, switching behavior, competitive alternatives, unmet needs, feature framing, or value propositions; avoid for backlog story syntax, delivery hierarchy, or business-model economics.

Drive PRD implementation through a durable /goal, scoped parallel implementation agents, independent QA ownership, acceptance evidence, and persona-based test instructions. Use when a PRD must be delivered end-to-end and every acceptance criterion must be verified before marking the goal complete.

Prioritize product features with the Kano model of customer satisfaction. Use when sorting feature ideas, roadmap items, requirements, or service attributes into must-haves, performance drivers, delighters, low-value work, and reverse effects; use to decide what to protect, improve, add, defer, remove, or validate.

Coordinate multiple coding agents in shared repos with task packets, worktree or branch isolation, path ownership, verification loops, and PR or CI follow-through. Use when supervising ticket-driven multi-agent implementation or conflict-safe execution. Do not use for abstract LLM task splitting without repo state; use orchestrator-workers instead.

Review software architecture before editing. Use when asked to assess module boundaries, interfaces, layering, ownership, seams, adapters, locality, coupling, shallow modules, or refactor candidates. Produces ranked architecture candidates and waits for explicit approval before changing code. For normal code review use code-reviewer; for approved behavior-preserving edits use refactoring.

Map value creation, delivery, and capture with the Business Model Canvas. Use when evaluating startups, pivots, product strategy, revenue streams, cost structure, partners, channels, or business-model coherence; avoid for deep customer-job research, roadmap breakdowns, or macro-environment scans.

Choose Tailwind CSS v4 component styling patterns. Use when building Tailwind components, buttons, cards, variants, slots, state styles, or design tokens; choosing utilities vs CVA vs tailwind-variants; avoiding @apply; or migrating v3 component patterns. For project-level Tailwind installation, PostCSS/Vite setup, @source, plugins, or browser support, use tailwind-v4-configuration instead.

Decide whether to abstract, duplicate, inline, or split code. Use when creating shared utilities, components, facades, hooks, service wrappers, or DRY/WET refactors; reviewing parameter-heavy helpers, option flags, shallow facades, or premature abstractions. For broad behavior-preserving restructuring use refactoring; for component extraction use decompose.

Simplify recently changed code without changing behavior. Use after implementation when working code has excess nesting, repetition, indirection, unclear names, redundant branches, or needless abstraction. Scope stays near touched code and favors guard clauses and readability. For larger planned restructuring use refactoring; for extracting component pieces use decompose.

Identify cognitive biases shaping product decisions and user behavior. Use when auditing decision points, conversion flows, pricing, framing, defaults, or research interpretation; avoid when a narrower bias skill such as loss aversion, status quo bias, halo effect, social proof, or Hick's Law directly fits.

Improve clarity by making content and interfaces easier to process. Use when auditing readability, hierarchy, labels, landing-page copy, onboarding text, or trust created by simplicity; avoid when the main issue is task complexity, choice overload, or staged information reveal.

Reduce unnecessary mental effort with Cognitive Load Theory. Use when complex workflows, onboarding, forms, information architecture, or feature-rich interfaces overwhelm users; separate intrinsic task difficulty from extraneous UI friction and avoid using this only for copy clarity or choice-count problems.

Draft or review Conventional Commits messages with type, optional scope, imperative summary, body, footer, and breaking-change notes. Use when user asks for a commit message, commit title and body, changelog-safe wording, or commit-format review. Do not use for PR descriptions; use summarize-branch.

Apply CSS container queries for parent-size responsive components. Use when cards, widgets, panels, sidebars, forms, or component-library elements must adapt to their container width with @container, container-type, container-name, or Tailwind @container variants. Use media queries instead for page-level viewport layout, global breakpoints, or full-page composition.

Create ethical information gaps that earn attention and resolve with real payoff. Use when writing headlines, notifications, teasers, onboarding reveals, or feature-discovery prompts; avoid fake urgency, vague clickbait, or habit-loop work better handled by Hooked or self-initiated triggers.

Split an oversized component into focused helpers, hooks, and sub-components. Use when React/UI code mixes rendering, state, effects, handlers, data shaping, and repeated sections, or when a file is hard to scan. Preserve behavior and avoid generic abstractions. For general code restructuring use refactoring; for abstraction decisions beyond one component use code-architecture-wrong-abstraction.

Analyze ambiguous problems, hard decisions, root causes, product strategy, or tradeoffs with useful frameworks, assumptions, validation, and next actions. Use when user needs structured thinking before choosing a path. Do not use when task is requirements capture; use discuss-task or to-prd.

Design focused practice loops for skill improvement. Use when learning a skill, breaking a plateau, creating training routines, onboarding practitioners, or choosing feedback and challenge levels; avoid for generic productivity, knowledge organization, or project delivery planning.

Dogfood a web app or local URL with exploratory QA, bug hunt, UX review, console checks, screenshots, videos, repro steps, and severity report. Use when user asks to test, QA, find issues, review quality, or explore site/app behavior. Do not inspect source code during testing.

Estimate engineering effort from scope, risk, unknowns, and verification cost. Use when sizing features, splitting work, planning sprints, comparing implementation options, or deciding whether a task is XS through XL; avoid for product value, requirements quality, or business-case analysis.

Automate or test Electron desktop apps through agent-browser and Chrome DevTools Protocol, including Slack, VS Code, Discord, Figma, Notion, Spotify, and similar apps. Use when user asks to control, connect to, inspect, click, fill, screenshot, or interact with a native Electron app UI. Do not use for normal web URLs.

Run an evaluator-optimizer loop by generating candidate outputs, scoring against a rubric or tests, revising, and stopping on pass, budget, or plateau. Use when quality criteria are explicit and iterative refinement is cheaper than failure. Do not use when no reliable eval signal exists.

Trace a specific problem to systemic root causes with Five Whys. Use when investigating incidents, recurring bugs, churn, process failures, delays, or unexplained outcomes; require evidence at each step and avoid broad strategy analysis or blame-focused retrospectives.

Diagnose behavior change with B=MAP motivation, ability, and prompt. Use when users do not take a target action, onboarding stalls, conversion drops, feature adoption lags, or prompts fire at the wrong moment; avoid for full habit-loop design better handled by Hooked.

Shape long-running autonomous work into one durable goal with stop condition, validation loop, checkpoints, progress format, and pause rules. Use when user wants an agent to keep making scoped progress across migrations, refactors, prototypes, evals, retry loops, or prompt optimization until verifiably done. Do not use for loose backlog lists or one-shot answers.

Use Tit for Tat to manage repeated interactions with reciprocity, cooperation, and boundaries. Use when navigating workplace dynamics, partnerships, negotiations, conflicts, vendor relationships, or product systems with reciprocal behavior; avoid for one-shot decisions or zero-sum framing.

Model complex systems as nodes, edges, flows, and dependencies. Use when mapping stakeholder networks, causal loops, product ecosystems, architecture dependencies, knowledge graphs, or non-linear strategy problems; avoid when a simple hierarchy, roadmap, or checklist is enough.

Use halo-effect analysis for first impressions and perception spillover. Use when brand polish, visual quality, flagship features, reviews, or spokesperson credibility may shape trust in unrelated product areas; avoid for general trust, social proof, or readability problems.

Reduce decision time by managing choice count and choice structure with Hick's Law. Use when designing menus, navigation, plans, filters, onboarding paths, settings, or feature sets with too many options; avoid for complex-task load, staged disclosure, or CTA visibility issues.