beagle

Use when you need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan but do NOT have a brainstorm-beagle spec to plan against. quick-plan reconstructs intent from the current conversation, fans out domain-expert exploration subagents across the codebase, and synthesizes the same plan format write-plan produces — without requiring `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md`. Triggers on: "quick plan", "plan this out", "plan what we just discussed", "turn this into an implementation plan", "plan this without a spec", "I don't have a spec, just plan it", "write-plan but no spec". Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants an implementation or TDD plan and there is no spec to plan against — even if they just say "plan it" after discussing a feature. Writes to `.beagle/plans/<slug>/plan.md`. If a finalized spec already exists at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md`, prefer write-plan. Does NOT brainstorm specs, write code, or execute the plan — produces the plan document (and an optional handoff prompt) only.

Use when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: "brainstorm this", "I have an idea for...", "help me think through this project", "what should I build", "spec this out". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews — produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.

Use as the follow-up to brainstorm-beagle when a spec has an Open Questions section (or quietly carries latent gaps) that need closing before planning or implementation can begin. Triggers on: "resolve the open questions", "close the gaps in this spec", "research the open items", "finalize my spec", "make this spec implementation-ready", "answer the TBDs". Also triggers whenever the user points at a brainstorm-beagle spec and asks for research, proposals, or answers to unresolved items. Orchestrates parallel research subagents when available (falls back to inline sequential research otherwise), proposes answers one at a time for user approval, then rewrites the spec in place so it arrives at planning with no known gaps. Does NOT write code, design implementation, or create plans — it only produces a complete spec.

Use when you have a finalized brainstorm-beagle spec at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md` and need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan before any code is written. Triggers on: "write a plan", "plan this spec", "turn the spec into a plan", "now plan the implementation", "write-plan". Reads the spec, designs the file structure, decomposes work into 2-5 minute TDD steps with exact paths and commands, self-reviews against the spec, gets user approval, then writes to `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/plan.md` and offers to generate an execution handoff prompt via the subagent-prompt skill. Does NOT brainstorm specs, write code, or execute the plan — produces the plan document (and an optional handoff prompt) only.

Core technical documentation writing principles for voice, tone, structure, and LLM-friendly patterns. Use when writing or reviewing any documentation.

Generate first-draft technical documentation from code analysis

Verify documentation coverage and generate missing docs interactively

Explanation documentation patterns for understanding-oriented content - conceptual guides that explain why things work the way they do. Use when writing an explanation doc, conceptual guide, understanding/background doc, design rationale, or architecture explanation, or when asked how/why something works. Builds on the docs-style core writing principles.

How-To guide patterns for documentation - task-oriented guides for users with specific goals. Use when writing a how-to/howto guide, task guide, procedural guide, step-by-step guide, or how-to documentation. Builds on the docs-style core writing principles.

Analyze and improve existing documentation using Diataxis principles

Reference documentation patterns for API and symbol documentation. Use when writing reference docs, API docs, parameter tables, or technical specifications. Triggers on reference docs, API reference, function reference, parameters table, symbol documentation.

Tutorial patterns for documentation - learning-oriented guides that teach through guided doing. Use when writing a tutorial, learning guide, getting-started or onboarding guide, beginner/introductory guide, or any learn-by-doing hands-on guide. Builds on the docs-style core writing principles.

Produce a comprehensive prompt that hands off the current session's work to a fresh session for sub-agent-orchestrated execution. Use when the user wants to execute discussed/planned work in a new session, run a job to completion via sub-agents, or generate a portable handoff prompt with per-task verification. Assumes the target session supports sub-agents. Triggers on "subagent-prompt", "give me a prompt to run this in a new session", "hand this off to sub-agents", "execute this with sub-agents".

Reviews Deep Agents code for bugs, anti-patterns, and improvements. Use when reviewing code that uses create_deep_agent, backends, subagents, middleware, or human-in-the-loop patterns. Catches common configuration and usage mistakes.

Reviews LangGraph code for bugs, anti-patterns, and improvements. Use when reviewing code that uses StateGraph, nodes, edges, checkpointing, or other LangGraph features. Catches common mistakes in state management, graph structure, and async patterns.

Review implementation plans for parallelization, TDD, types, libraries, and security before execution

Repo-wide structural-maintainability review — code-judo restructurings, 1k-line file guard, anti-spaghetti branching, canonical-layer enforcement, anti-magic abstractions, explicit type/boundary contracts.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on "which repo is better", "compare these implementations", "evaluate both solutions", "rank these codebases", or "judge which approach wins". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality — use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs — use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.

Use when the user wants to build or think through a strategy via guided conversation — for a company, product, team, career, or initiative. Triggers on "help me figure out our direction", "what should we focus on", strategic planning, competitive positioning, go-to-market strategy. Also catches indirect requests like prioritization struggles or "we have too many priorities". Does NOT review existing strategy documents (use strategy-review) or brainstorm project features (use brainstorm-beagle).

Use when reviewing, critiquing, or stress-testing an existing strategy document. Evaluates seven dimensions — diagnosis quality, guiding policy strength, action coherence, assumption exposure, falsifiability — with optional 7S, Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard, and Hoshin Kanri lenses. Triggers on: review my strategy, poke holes in this plan, what's weak here, strategy audit, red team this. Does NOT build strategy (use strategy-interview) or brainstorm project ideas (use brainstorm-beagle).

Use when the user wants web research: gathering cited, multi-angle evidence on a specific question. Triggers on: "research X for me", "do web research on", "look up sources for", "find citations for", "gather evidence on", "what does the web say about X". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), local file search, LLM-as-judge evaluation, or paywalled/auth-gated scraping. Produces a written plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

Use when you want to generate Architecture Decision Records from this session. Triggers on "write ADRs", "document our decisions", "create decision records", "record the choices we made". Also useful after design discussions where decisions were reached but not documented. Does NOT extract decisions alone (use adr-decision-extraction) or provide MADR template (use adr-writing). Orchestrates the full workflow: subagent extraction, user confirmation, parallel generation, and verification.

commit and push all local changes to remote repo

create a pull request with standardized description template

Fetch unresolved review comments from a PR and evaluate with receive-feedback skill

Applies fixes from a prior review-llm-artifacts run, with safe/risky classification. Respects verify-llm-artifacts output when present to skip false positives.

generate release notes for changes since a given tag

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts in codebases. Identifies test quality issues, dead code, over-abstraction, and verbose LLM style patterns. Use when cleaning up AI-generated code or reviewing for agent-introduced cruft.

Optimize prompts for code-related tasks following prompt-engineering best practices. Use when refining prompts for implementation, debugging, refactoring, code review, or testing.

Process external code review feedback with technical rigor. Use when receiving feedback from another LLM, human reviewer, or CI tool. Verifies claims before implementing, tracks disposition.

Respond to review comments on a PR after evaluation and fixes

Schema for tracking code review outcomes to enable feedback-driven skill improvement. Use when logging review results or analyzing review quality.