Packs

Dev team

When to use it

Build-and-ship: story splitting, implementation with adversarial review, test plans, triage, pull request descriptions, a ranked technical-debt register, migrations, launch readiness, release notes, agent-policy files, and code-quality gates.

Covers

Build and review software (15), Run and recover the service (3), Design the system (1), Decide what to build (1)

Where you decide

• G2.1 human — build → decide
• G10.1 human — modernize → cutover
• G3 review — release → ready
• G3.1 human — release → go

Size

25 skills · 3 loops · 6 gates, 4 need a person

Installs 25 skills, including core.

Is this branch safe to merge? Run a pre-merge review on the current diff.

Loops

• build — Take an agreed requirement to merged code through a capped generate-verify-gate loop, with a mechanical gate that decides and a human who owns the merge.
  shape → implement → verify [G2] → decide [G2.1]
• modernize — Replace or rewrite a legacy component without changing what it does: orient in the old code, plan the restructuring and the move, record the old system's behaviour before anything is rebuilt, rebuild in small steps, prove the new one gives the same results on the recordings, and cut over only when a person accepts the evidence.
  survey → plan → capture → rebuild → prove [G10] → cutover [G10.1]
• release — Take merged code to live users through a planned, reversible rollout — plan the phases and the rollback, judge readiness on evidence, draft the release notes, then a human makes the go/no-go call.
  plan → ready [G3] → announce → go [G3.1]

Compare Dev team with another pack

Skills in this pack (20)

• accessibility-audit Adversarially audit a UI (component code, page markup, screenshot, or flow) against WCAG 2.2 AA — findings cited to specific success criteria, centered on the user and assistive tech each one blocks, severity-tagged, with a concrete fix and what a scanner would miss. Use when the user wants an accessibility review, a11y audit, WCAG check, or to find what blocks screen-reader / keyboard / low-vision users before shipping. heavy
• agents-md-generator Generate or audit a repository's AGENTS.md — the agent-policy file Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Kiro and Antigravity read — with every command traced to real evidence in the repo, generic virtue instructions stripped, and forbidden actions named. Use when a repo has no AGENTS.md, when an existing one is stale or ignored, when onboarding a codebase to agentic coding, or when an agent keeps running commands that don't exist. standard
• behaviour-equivalence Prove that a rewritten, migrated or refactored component behaves the same as the old one with a golden-master comparison — record inputs and outputs at a boundary (HTTP, function calls, batch files, DB writes, events) from production-shaped traffic and edge cases, run the old system twice to find its nondeterminism, normalise narrowly field by field, replay against the new one, triage every difference as defect, intended change (with a named approver) or missing normalisation, and give a verdict of EQUIVALENT, EQUIVALENT EXCEPT LISTED CHANGES, NOT EQUIVALENT or NOT PROVEN. Use when the user asks "does the new one behave the same as the old one", "can we sign off the rewrite", "are these diffs just noise", wants a golden-master, approval or shadow-traffic comparison, a parity check between old and new outputs, or says "prove behaviour equivalence". standard
• bug-triage Turn a vague bug report (Slack message, support ticket, "it's broken on mobile sometimes") into an actionable ticket — searchable symptom title, numbered repro steps from a clean state, expected vs actual, severity separated from priority, evidence tagged reported-vs-verified, and labeled hypotheses instead of root-cause guesses. Use when the user wants to triage a bug, write up a bug report, turn a complaint into a ticket, or make a flaky issue actionable. standard
• codebase-tour Get a newcomer (a new engineer, or the agent itself) oriented in an unfamiliar repository before they make one specific change, with a short tour scoped to that change. It gives the install, run and test commands taken from CI, package scripts and the Makefile; the path the change touches, traced through the code with file:line citations; where the change goes; the conventions the code actually follows; the traps (generated files, a second copy of the logic, untested code, env vars, flags); and a first step that can be checked. Use when someone says "I'm new to this repo", "get me oriented", "where would I make this change", "walk me through the code for X", "onboard me before I start this ticket", or "how do I run and test this". standard
• dependency-upgrade-review Give a merge verdict on a dependency-upgrade pull request (Dependabot, Renovate or a hand-made bump) across npm, pip, Go, Cargo and Maven lockfiles and GitHub Actions pins. Reads the release notes for every skipped version, lists what the lockfile changes beyond the PR title (transitive bumps, new and removed packages, install scripts, registry changes), checks each SHA pin against its release tag and against the PR's other pins, checks raised runtime floors against the images and runners that install it, says whether CI ran the changed code, traces what each caller of a changed API now does and writes the rollback. The reply leads with MERGE, MERGE AFTER CHECKS or DO NOT MERGE and the reasons that decide it. Use when the user says "review this Dependabot PR", "is this Renovate bump safe to merge", "can I merge this dependency upgrade", "check this lockfile diff", or "is this action SHA pin right". standard
• devils-advocate Adversarial review of a code change before it merges — the real bugs, most consequential first, each checked against the code before it is reported, with a fix that works. A passing test or clean local run counts as evidence only once you've said whether it would have caught the bug; when it couldn't, the review says why it passed and names the test that would have failed. Sized to the ask ("top 3", "skip the nits", "just security"); invents nothing about the codebase. Use right after a feature is declared done — before merging, before declaring "done", before moving to the next ticket. heavy
• feature-implement-loop Implement a feature or story so it ends up verified, not just generated. Takes a description + acceptance criteria, writes code and tests, then runs an adversarial review pass that hunts for gaps (broken edge cases, baked-in assumptions, uncovered acceptance criteria), and re-generates to close them — looping until the review is clean or a 3-round cap is hit. Use when handed a ticket / story / feature spec with acceptance criteria and the goal is shippable, self-checked code — not a first draft. standard
• launch-readiness Produce a go/no-go launch readiness report for a merged change before it goes live — one row per check (rollback path, alert and runbook per new failure mode, NFR targets measured, comms drafted, data/privacy sign-off), each with an owner, evidence link, and met / not met / n/a-because status, ending in a PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / REVISE / BLOCKED verdict. Use when the user asks "are we ready to launch", "go/no-go", "production readiness review", "launch checklist", or "can we ship this to users". standard
• migration-plan Generate a phased migration or rollout plan (schema change, API version, datastore swap, platform move, auth-provider switch) — expand→migrate→contract by default, every phase reversible or its point of no return named, observable gates between phases, idempotent backfill with parity checks. Use when the user needs a migration plan, cutover plan, rollout strategy, or asks "how do we get from X to Y without downtime". standard
• pr-description-writer Write the pull request title and description for one change, from the actual diff and commits: what changed and why, how it was tested with only the checks that were really run, what a reviewer should look at first, and the risk and rollback. It also reports what the diff contains that the commits don't mention, such as a dependency bump, a deleted test or a schema change. Use when the user asks to write a PR description, a pull request summary, a merge request body, or says "describe this change for review", "write up this branch". standard
• pre-merge-review Gate an existing change for merge — run one skill that fires the whole production-readiness pass. First a deterministic mechanical gate (lint + typecheck + tests, via a script whose exit code decides), then the three-reviewer panel dispatched in parallel — devils-advocate (correctness), security-reviewer (exploitability), code-quality (craft) — then a single READY / NOT READY verdict. Use before opening a PR or merging, when you want the full review fleet run on a diff you already have. Do NOT use to implement a feature from a spec (that's feature-implement-loop) or to review a document (that's doc-critique). standard
• refactor-plan Plan paying down one piece of technical debt as a refactor that serves the goal it is blocking — characterisation tests on the riskiest behaviour first, then small steps each merged to main with main releasable after every one, pure refactors kept apart from the behaviour changes the goal needs, a scope fence, a stop point, a technique per step (extract, branch by abstraction, parallel change, strangler fig, mikado) and the clashes with in-flight feature work. Use when the user asks for a refactor plan, how to untangle, break up, replace or clean up a module without a rewrite, how to pay down a tech-debt item, "how do we refactor X without stopping feature work", "how do we get off X without a big bang", or wants a strangler-fig or mikado plan. standard
• release-notes Write release notes from a git log, a list of merged PRs or rough notes about what changed — for the audience and in the format the user names (a customer changelog page, an email, an in-app "what's new", store text, a CHANGELOG.md entry). Says nothing the input doesn't, writes a vague change only as far as it was described, puts breaking changes and anything the reader must do first, and keeps internal noise and working notes out of the text. Use when the user wants release notes, a changelog entry, "what's in this release", a deploy announcement, or to summarise changes since the last tag. standard
• rollout-plan Plan the progressive release of a code change behind a feature flag or canary — the exposure ladder (internal, beta cohort, 1%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 100%, or what the traffic supports), and for each step who is exposed, decision and guardrail metrics with a baseline and a threshold against a control cohort, the minimum traffic and time before the numbers mean anything, a promote / hold / roll back rule set in advance, who watches and what aborts automatically; then what turning the flag off does not undo, and who removes the flag by when. Use when the user asks for a rollout plan, canary plan, ramp schedule, progressive delivery or percentage rollout, "how long should the canary run", "when do we go from 5% to 25%", or how to turn on a flagged feature safely. standard
• sonar-onboard Scaffold a repo for Sonar compliance — supports both SonarQube server (self-hosted) and SonarCloud (SaaS), user picks at setup time. Generates sonar-project.properties with language-correct source/test/coverage paths, a CI workflow that runs the scanner on every push and PR and blocks merge on quality-gate failure, and a README snippet documenting the gate. One-shot setup; pair with sonar-review for per-change feedback. Use when the user says "set up Sonar", "add SonarQube to this repo", "wire up SonarCloud", "set up the quality gate", or asks to make a project Sonar-compliant for the first time. light
• sonar-review Run a Sonar scan against the just-changed code on the current branch and produce a structured compliance report — quality-gate verdict (PASS / FAIL), then severity-tagged findings (🟥 blocker / 🟧 critical / 🟨 major / ⚪ minor / ⚪ info) scoped to changed files, each with file:line, the Sonar rule ID, the category (bug / vulnerability / security hotspot / code smell), why it matters, and a concrete fix. Works against both SonarQube server (self-hosted) and SonarCloud (SaaS) — mode is detected from sonar-project.properties. Sister skill to devils-advocate, but enforces Sonar's rule catalog and the project's quality gate rather than a hand-rolled lens sweep. Use after writing code, before pushing or opening a PR, when the user says "is this Sonar-compliant?", "run Sonar on this", "will the quality gate pass?", or any pre-merge compliance check. standard
• tech-debt-register Turn a pile of technical-debt complaints, TODOs and incident notes into a ranked register: each item with where it lives, the cost it imposes today backed by evidence, the size of the fix, a decision (pay now, schedule, accept or watch) with the trigger that reopens it, and an owner if one was given. It ends with the few items worth paying down this quarter and why. Use when the user asks for a tech debt register, a debt inventory or backlog, "what debt should we pay down", "prioritise our tech debt", or wants to make the case for refactoring time. standard
• test-plan-generator Generate a risk-based test plan for a feature, PR, or release — risks ranked by likelihood × impact, test cases pushed to the lowest pyramid level that catches the failure, every acceptance criterion mapped to a test, and an explicit "not tested" list. Use when the user asks for a test plan, test cases, a QA strategy for a change, "how should we test this", or pre-release test coverage. standard
• user-story-splitter Split an epic, feature request, or PRD chunk into independently shippable user stories with testable Gherkin acceptance criteria and a recommended build order. Use whenever the user wants to "break this down", turn an epic or PRD into a backlog, slice a feature for sprint planning, or write acceptance criteria for a story. standard

Included from core (5)

• brief-intake Turn raw mess — a Slack thread, meeting transcript, Jira ticket, half-written Notion page, email chain, or paragraph of free-form context — into a structured brief that the downstream skill (adr-generator, design-doc, runbook-generator, exec-summary, slide-outliner) can consume without further intake. Use whenever the user has unstructured source material and is about to invoke another skilldrop skill, or when a draft is missing the load-bearing context the next step will need. standard
• context-graph Map the decisions behind a codebase from its ADRs, RFCs and design records — each record's status and date, what supersedes or amends what, which records cite which, the files and folders each decision governs, and with git the commits that implemented it and the commits that changed each decision's code since it was made, and who made them — then answer "why is it like this?" from the record and check the record is still true. Finds supersessions only one side records, current decisions pointing at code that is gone, code that has drifted from its decision, two current decisions governing the same path, and references to records that don't exist. Use when the user asks "why do we use X", "which decisions govern this file or service", "is this ADR still current", "has the code drifted since we decided this", "are our ADRs out of date", "what was decided before I change this", wants a map of the architecture decisions, or is onboarding onto a codebase's history. standard
• council-review Convene a council of distinct senior-engineer personas (Architect, Security, Operator/SRE, Pragmatist, User-Advocate, plus optional bench seats) to deliberate a decision, design, or code change — each takes an independent stance, the genuine disagreements are surfaced as named cruxes, and a Chair issues a reconciled verdict that records dissents and states what would change the decision. The "Claude Council." Use when a choice has real tradeoffs and one reviewer's voice isn't enough: architecture decisions, risky changes before merge, RFC/design scrutiny, "should we adopt X?", rewrite-vs-refactor, or a pre-mortem. heavy
• doc-critique Review an existing document — ADR, design doc, runbook, exec summary, tech-comparison matrix, deck outline, decision log — and produce a structured critique against the same quality bars the skilldrop generators enforce. Categorizes findings by severity (blocker / major / minor / nit), points to the exact section/line, and suggests a concrete fix for each. Use when the user wants a second-pair-of-eyes review before sharing a doc, or has been handed someone else's artifact and wants to know what to push back on. heavy
• output-hygiene Review agent-written text before it ships and strip the machine artifacts it carries — invisible Unicode, non-breaking spaces, homoglyphs, harness-added provenance trailers, trailing chat closers — then flag the prose tells a script cannot catch, each quoted with a rewrite. Use when the user wants to clean up AI-generated output, asks to remove a Claude watermark, attribution footer, or "Generated with" line, wants a draft that does not read as machine-written, or needs a pre-ship hygiene pass on a document, commit message, or pasted chat answer. standard