3102 skills
Domain patterns for edge computing and offline-first systems — sync protocols, conflict resolution under partition, local-first architecture, constrained resources, intermittent connectivity, and failure modes. Use when designing or evaluating mobile apps, IoT systems, field-deployed software, or any system that must work without reliable network access.
Foundational patterns for distributed systems — consensus, consistency models, replication, partitioning, clock synchronization, distributed transactions, and failure modes. Use when designing or evaluating any system that spans multiple nodes, processes, or failure domains.
Domain patterns for data pipeline architecture — batch processing, stream processing, ETL/ELT, DAG scheduling, data quality, schema evolution, backfill strategies, and failure modes. Use when designing or evaluating data pipelines, ETL systems, or streaming data infrastructure.
Domain patterns for CLI tools and developer SDKs — command structure, configuration layering, plugin architecture, distribution, backward compatibility, shell integration, and failure modes. Use when designing or evaluating command-line tools, developer platforms, or SDK libraries.
Domain patterns for Azure cloud architecture — compute selection, managed services, identity (Entra ID), networking, data platform, messaging, deployment, cost management, and operational patterns. Use when designing or evaluating a system deployed on Microsoft Azure.
Object-oriented design principles as a lens for system architecture — SOLID, composition over inheritance, the actor model, design patterns (and when they're wrong), encapsulation, polymorphism, and responsibility-driven design. Use when evaluating code organization, module boundaries, or object/component relationships.
The Unix/Linux design philosophy as a lens for system design — mechanism vs policy, composability, small tools, text streams, convention over configuration, and the principle of least surprise. Use when evaluating designs for composability, simplicity, or separation of concerns.
Domain-Driven Design as a lens for system architecture — bounded contexts, aggregates, ubiquitous language, context mapping, domain events, and strategic vs tactical patterns. Use when modeling complex business domains, defining service boundaries, or evaluating whether a system's structure reflects its domain.
Catalog of reusable architectural primitives — boundaries, contracts, state machines, queues, caches, consistency models, and more. For each: what it is, when it's right, when it's WRONG. Use when selecting patterns for a design or evaluating whether a pattern fits.
Adversarial review of a system design from 6 critical perspectives -- SRE, security, staff engineer, finance, operator, and developer advocate. Produces a unified risk assessment. Use for INTERACTIVE on-demand reviews during a design conversation (/adversarial-review). For RECIPE-DRIVEN reviews (where prior step context is needed), use the systems-design-critic agent instead.
Use when verifying that completed work actually works. Auto-surface during /verify mode, post-implementation review, or before claiming a task is done. Teaches testing outcomes vs implementation, the unit/integration/smoke gradient, and what "done" actually means.
User-need reviewer that speaks for the person who isn't in the room — the one who will actually live with what gets built. Hunts the gap between "we can build this" and "they actually want this," in the patient, impatient voice of the absent user. Use at any checkpoint — brainstorm, design, plan, implement, debug, review — when a feature is being built because it's buildable rather than wanted, the recovery path is missing, or nobody can name the person this serves: "do they actually want this, and can they live with it?"
Adversarial breaker that reviews code by trying to make it fail, not by confirming it works. Hunts the unhappy paths — malformed input, the empty string, the reversed range, the race condition — as a gleeful adversary who assumes everything is broken until a concrete attempt to break it comes up empty. Use at any checkpoint — brainstorm, design, plan, implement, debug, review — when the happy path is celebrated while the edges sit unexamined, "looks fine" stands in for "I tried to break it and couldn't," or nobody has named the input that makes this fall over: "how does this fail, and where ar
Authoritative consultant for all skills-related questions. Use when creating or modifying skills, understanding the Agent Skills spec, troubleshooting skill loading or invocation issues, leveraging enhanced format features (context fork, model_role, user-invocable), writing cross-harness portable skills, ensuring Claude Code Skills 2.0 compatibility, or deciding between skills vs agents.
Capture a repeatable process from the current session into a reusable Amplifier SKILL.md skill file. Use when the user wants to create a skill, save a workflow as a skill, turn a process into a reusable skill, or mentions "skillify", "create skill", "make a skill", "save as skill", "capture workflow", "turn this into a skill", "new skill", or wants to automate a repeatable process they just performed.
Diagnose issues in the current Amplifier session — misconfigured tools, failing operations, unexpected behavior. Use when something isn't working right.
Independent review of current work or a past session. USE WHEN a user wants a second opinion. DO NOT USE WHEN ordinary code review is wanted — use code-review.
Momentum-driven engineering reviewer holding one uncompromising gate: is it REAL, proven end-to-end as a user would? Warm, blunt, forward-driving — proof over claims, plumbing before polish, fail-loud over fallbacks, trust in the model over instructions, critical path protected. Use at any checkpoint — brainstorm, design, plan, implement, debug, ship — when testing whether work is provable, built in the right order, or actually done rather than band-aided: "are we fooling ourselves about what's real?"
Convene the Product Development Council — six orthogonal product-delivery lenses anchored by a mandatory problem-validation gate. Cold independent fan-out, debate-to-consensus, synthesized verdict with recorded dissent and a roster manifest.
Convene the Product Development Council on the CURRENT conversation — the plan, roadmap, or scope decision built in this session. The INLINE counterpart to /product-council (which forks isolated and cannot see the chat). Use when you want the council to critique what we're working on right now.
Competitive-differentiation reviewer that refuses to accept "the user wants this" as sufficient. Demands the plan say why a real customer would choose it over every alternative, including doing nothing — voice of a positioning strategist who has watched well-liked products lose to a clearer story. Use at any product checkpoint — plan, roadmap, go-to-market framing — when nobody can say why users would switch or pay, the competitive landscape is unaddressed, or "no one else does this" is asserted without checking: "why us, why this, why now?"
Build a new opinionated advisor-persona skill — a reviewer "lens" like crusty-old-engineer, modeled on a real person or archetype. Mines the subject's authentic voice, defines its one load-bearing question, drafts it to the family template, and proves it steers a live session before publishing to a skills bundle. Use when creating or authoring a persona/advisor skill, adding a sibling to the crusty-old-engineer family, or turning a person's real direction style into a reusable reviewer skill. Also triggers on "personafy" / "personify".
Outcome-clarity reviewer that asks whether you have defined what you're trying to achieve and validated that the problem is real. Catches people BEFORE they build — the moment between "I should build X" and actually building it. Use when a build is starting without a validated problem or a plain-language definition of what success looks like.
Outcome-validity reviewer that refuses to count shipped work as progress until it maps to a measurable change in behavior. Hunts the gap between "we shipped it" and "we moved the number" — the output mistaken for an outcome. Use at any product checkpoint — plan, roadmap, PRD, ship review — when deliverables carry no metric, "done" is confused with "worked," or nobody can say how success will be measured: "what measurable outcome defines success, and how will we know we moved it?"
