beagle

Create Claude Code skills with best practices, structure, validation, and testing. Use when designing or refining skills, prompts, references, or supporting files.

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 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 when the user wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: "work backwards", "write a PRFAQ", "press release first", "is this idea worth building", "pressure-test this concept", "filter this before brainstorm", "is this a real product". Also catches solution-first pitches ("I want to build X that does Y") and technology-first pitches ("use AI to...") that need customer-first filtering. Produces a binary pass/fail verdict, not a polished doc. Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical, concrete. On pass, hands off to brainstorm-beagle with a concept brief. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, scaffold projects, or draft specs.

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.

generate release notes for changes since a given tag

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.

Reviews Rust FFI code for type safety, memory layout compatibility, string handling, callback patterns, and unsafe boundary correctness. Use when reviewing extern blocks, #[repr(C)] types, bindgen output, or code calling C/C++ libraries.

Reviews Rust macro code for hygiene issues, fragment misuse, compile-time impact, and procedural macro patterns. Use when reviewing macro_rules! definitions, procedural macros, derive macros, or attribute macros.

Comprehensive Rust code review with optional parallel agents

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

Guidance for scaffolding new Rust projects. Use when: (1) starting a new Rust project or workspace, (2) configuring Cargo.toml best practices, (3) setting up CI pipelines for Rust, (4) organizing a multi-crate workspace, (5) configuring clippy, rustfmt, and linting.

Reviews Rust test code for unit test patterns, integration test structure, async testing, mocking approaches, and property-based testing. Covers Rust 2024 edition changes including async fn in traits for mocks,

Reviews serde serialization code for derive patterns, enum representations, custom implementations, and common serialization bugs. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses serde, serde_json, toml, or any serde-based serialization format. Covers attribute macros, field renaming, and format-specific pitfalls.

Reviews sqlx database code for compile-time query checking, connection pool management, migration patterns, and PostgreSQL-specific usage. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses sqlx, database queries, connection pools, or migrations. Covers offline mode, type mapping, and transaction patterns.

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

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 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).

Rewrite AI-generated developer text to sound human — fix inflated language, filler, tautological docs, and robotic tone. Use after review-ai-writing identifies issues.

Detect AI-generated writing patterns in developer text — docs, docstrings, commit messages, PR descriptions, and code comments. Use when reviewing any text artifact for authenticity and clarity.

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.

Analyze repo, detect stack, trace changes to user-facing entry points, generate E2E YAML test plan

Execute YAML test plan, stop on first failure, output rich debug prompt

create a pull request with standardized description template

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 Claude best practices. Use when refining prompts for implementation, debugging, refactoring, code review, or testing.

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.

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts by spawning 4 parallel subagents

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

Analyzes feedback logs to identify patterns and suggest improvements to review skills. Use when you have accumulated feedback data and want to improve review accuracy.

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

Create Claude Code skills with best practices, structure, validation, and testing. Use when designing or refining skills, prompts, references, or supporting files.

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

How-To guide patterns for documentation - task-oriented guides for users with specific goals