esond/eng

Remove unused PackageVersion entries from Directory.Packages.props files in a .NET repo using Central Package Management (CPM). Scans every .csproj, .props, and .targets file for PackageReference includes, computes which PackageVersion IDs aren't referenced anywhere, removes the unused entries with line-targeted edits that preserve formatting and comments, then verifies with dotnet restore. Use this skill whenever the user wants to clean up, prune, or remove unused entries from Directory.Packages.props, or says things like "clean up CPM", "remove unused packages from central package management", "the props file has stale entries", "prune Directory.Packages.props", or "dead packages in the central versions file" — even if they don't literally say "CPM". Trigger proactively when the user mentions Directory.Packages.props alongside cleanup, removal, dead, stale, or unused. Refuses to run on repos without a Directory.Packages.props (CPM not in use).

Find and address inline code-review comments left in the code, marked with the rev: prefix (e.g. // rev:, # rev:, -- rev:). These are a manual code review done inline instead of on GitHub — each comment is a question, suggestion, concern, or change request about the nearby code. Use this skill whenever the user asks you to address, handle, resolve, go through, or respond to their inline review comments, rev comments, or rev: comments — even when phrased tersely, like "address my rev comments", "handle the reviews", "go through the rev: notes", "I left some inline comments", "respond to my review", or just "address these" right after leaving such comments. Trigger whenever the request references rev: comments in the code.

Structured research-plan-implement workflow for non-trivial tasks. Researches the codebase deeply and writes findings to a persistent file, then produces an annotatable implementation plan the user can mark up with inline notes, iterates through annotation cycles until approved, builds a task breakdown, and finally implements. Use this skill whenever the user has a multi-step implementation task, feature request, refactoring, or architectural change. Suggest this workflow when you detect tasks that would benefit from upfront research and planning — multi-file changes, unfamiliar code, architectural decisions, or anything where jumping straight to code would be risky. Even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for "research" or "planning", suggest it for substantial work.

Resume an in-progress plan-repl task from its persisted files. Reads tasks/{task-name}/research.md, plan.md, and todo.md, cross-references them against the current branch's git state to figure out where the previous session actually left off, then continues from that phase. Use this skill whenever the user wants to pick a plan-repl task back up — even if they phrase it as "resume the X task", "continue where we left off", "I cleared my context, let's keep going", "pick up the webhook-retries task", "what were we doing on X", or just "let's continue X" with a name that matches a directory under tasks/. The two main scenarios: (1) the user cleared their context mid-workflow because research and planning bloated the conversation and wants a fresh slate without losing the work on disk, and (2) the user is returning to a task in a new session after exiting earlier. Trigger proactively when the user references a task name that exists under tasks/ and hasn't been part of the current conversation yet.

Address outstanding review comments on a GitHub pull request. Fetches all unresolved review threads, submitted review bodies, and general PR comments, assesses each for validity, then either fixes the code, commits, replies with the commit hash, and resolves the thread, or — when declining — replies with justification and leaves the thread for the reviewer to resolve. Use this skill whenever the user wants to address, fix, resolve, or work through PR review comments or feedback — even if they just say something like "handle the PR comments", "address the review feedback", "fix what the reviewers said", or "go through the PR". Also trigger when the user pastes a PR URL and asks you to act on the feedback there.

Reorganize the commits on a non-default git branch into a clean, logical history by rewriting the branch — git reset + re-commit by default, scripted git rebase -i when commit boundaries already align. Propose groupings based on the actual work done (features, refactors, tests, fixes, docs), get explicit user approval, then rewrite history while re-signing commits and running hooks. Use this skill whenever the user wants to tidy up, clean up, reorganize, restructure, squash, or curate commits on a feature branch — even if they phrase it as "my branch is a mess", "squash this down", "combine these commits", "fix up the commit log before I open a PR", or "make the commits presentable for review". Trigger proactively when the user is about to open or push a PR and the branch has scrappy/WIP/"fix" commits to collapse. Refuses to operate on default or release-shaped branches (main, master, develop, trunk, production, release, or the repo default) — a feature-branch-only tool.

Opt-in, collaborative system-design workflow based on Juval Löwy's iDesign methodology in *Righting Software*. Conducts a multi-phase interview (framing → use cases → volatility analysis → components → call-chain validation → report) that surfaces unknown-unknowns and produces a written recommendation at decompositions/{system-name}/report.md. **Run only when the user explicitly invites this workflow** — not for general architecture questions, lightweight design conversations, or quick "where should X live?" questions. Valid triggers: the user names the skill directly, references *Righting Software* / Juval Löwy / iDesign / "The Method" / volatility-based decomposition and asks to run a full session, asks for a "deep" or "structured" or "Löwy-style" system design session, or accepts a prior suggestion to run it. Wait for an explicit yes before entering Phase 0. The skill is interrogative — a back-and-forth interview that challenges each volatility candidate and proposes ones the user hasn't considered.

Create or audit a repo's README.md, AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, and REVIEW.md docs.

Create or audit a repo's three core doc files — README.md, the agent instructions file (AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md), and REVIEW.md — in that dependency order. If a file is missing, generate it from the codebase; if it exists, audit it against the current code and apply targeted fixes after confirmation. README.md gets a developer from clone to running the project; AGENTS.md captures coding guidance for the agent (delegating to /init or claude-md-improver); REVIEW.md holds guidance for code reviewers, human or automated, without duplicating AGENTS.md. Target files with --readme, --claude, and --review, or run all three. Use whenever the user wants to set up, bootstrap, scaffold, refresh, audit, update, or sync a repo's docs, or says things like "create a README", "is my README still accurate", "write a CLAUDE.md", "write an AGENTS.md", "audit our docs", or "get this repo ready for contributors" — even when only one file is named. Prefer it over claude-md-improver when README or REVIEW are also in scope.