Add a new linter to vigiles's cross-referencing engine as one cohesive, type-enforced unit — a LinterAdapter in the LINTERS registry, with the conformance test enforcing docs + site parity so no site is forgotten
Deep linter reference for authoring or debugging a vigiles enforce() rule — plugin tables, AST selectors, type-aware rules, auto-fix, and edge cases for ESLint, Ruff, Pylint, RuboCop, Stylelint, and Clippy. Use when you need the exact rule name or config for a specific linter, not for running a linter. (JVM/Go linters — detekt, ktlint, Checkstyle, golangci-lint — and Cedar have no deep-dive file yet; their reference lives in docs/linter-support.md.)
Hunt for real bugs in the vigiles CLI/codebase with a parallel expert fan-out, then FIX them directly — source-trace each defect to file:line, add a regression test, commit per theme. Use when asked to dogfood vigiles, find/fix bugs across the CLI the source-traced way, or fan out agents to audit the tool on itself.
The purpose, UX flow, and modern-minimalist design bar for the vigiles.sh landing site (site/). Use whenever designing, editing, adding to, or reviewing any site/ component, hero, section, or marketing copy — read it BEFORE touching site/, and hold every change against it. Not for docs/ or the app itself.
Render a local web page / built site and capture full-page screenshots (desktop + mobile) using the pre-installed Chromium. Use when asked to screenshot, render, or "see how it looks" for the vigiles landing site (site/), the audit report (report/), or any local HTML/dev server. Handles the scroll-reveal gotcha (below-the-fold cards captured blank) automatically.
Synthesize a recurring code-review rule into a custom lint rule — gated by an independent soundness test that abstains rather than ship a checker it can't prove sound
Review the README or a documentation page from several real reader points of view at once. Fans out one parallel reviewer per audience — Claude Code newcomer, power user, plugin/skill author, skeptical senior engineer, non-running decision-maker — each scoring it x/5 and naming concrete, line-level fixes. Use when asked to review, critique, grade, or "get to N/5" the README or any front-door doc, or to check how a doc reads for real users. Not for code review (use /code-review for that).
Audit whether a repo's docs actually ANSWER the questions a reader has — by spawning fresh, cheap (Haiku) agents that cold-read ONLY the docs and measuring how fast they reach the answer, whether they hit dead-ends, whether they fall back to source code, and whether they cite docs that contradict each other. Use after a doc reorg, when docs "feel scattered," or when the same confusion keeps recurring. Surfaces findability gaps (a corpus can be COMPLETE — every doc indexed — yet not FINDABLE) plus a prioritized fix list. Works on any repo's docs, not just this one.