jeffabailey/jbb-skills

Removes the tells that make prose, user interfaces, and graphics read as AI-generated, then reports what changed. Rewrites performative phrasing, contrast framing, triads, signposting, emdashes, and marketing filler in prose; strips purple gradients, glassmorphism, pulsing badges, eyebrow labels, pill-everything, emoji decoration, and landing-page treatment of functional screens from UI code; and cleans decorative blobs, misaligned SVGs, broken ASCII art, and rainbow palettes from graphics and diagrams. Use when the user says /ai-sanitize, asks to "remove AI tells", "de-slop", "make this sound less like AI", "make this UI look less AI-generated", "humanize this copy", or asks why a page or draft feels generated. Edits in place by default; pass "report" to list tells without editing.

Ask deep investigative questions — 'why is X failing?' or 'where does Y belong?' — using Five Whys, structured reasoning, and domain-placement analysis. Read-only: no code is written or changed.

Creates a fitness-config.json for a project with review weights that fit what the project is for. Scans the folder (or runs a full review first, if asked), classifies its purpose, proposes weights starting from a matching purpose profile, explains every change, and saves only the proposal the user approved. Use when the user says /fitness-config-init, asks to "create a fitness config", "set up fitness-config.json", "initialize fitness config", "tune review weights for this project", "weight the review for this repo", or wants the fitness review to reflect a project's purpose instead of the defaults.

Generate a conventional commit message from staged changes, review before committing

Reviews frontend code for accessibility and usability fitness, scoring across semantic HTML, keyboard navigation, screen reader support, color/contrast, progressive enhancement, responsive design, and usability heuristics. Use when the user says /review:accessibility, requests an accessibility audit, asks for a11y review, wants WCAG compliance check, or needs usability evaluation of frontend code. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Analyzes code for algorithm/data structure correctness, concurrency safety, and edge case handling, producing fitness scores (1-10) across algorithm choice, data structure selection, complexity awareness, concurrency safety, edge case handling, and correctness patterns. Use when the user says /review:review-algorithms, requests an algorithm review, asks about correctness of data structure choices, wants a concurrency safety check, asks about edge case coverage, or wants to verify algorithmic complexity. This is NOT a performance review -- it asks "is this correct and appropriate?" not "is this fast enough?" Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Pulls a fitness report from a GitHub issue or from a local fitness report, addresses the action items by updating the codebase, and closes the issue when done. Use when the user says "apply review", "fix review issues", "address review feedback", "apply fitness report", or provides a GitHub issue URL containing a fitness report.

Analyzes code for software architecture fitness, producing scores (1-10) across coupling, cohesion, layering, modularity, naming, API design, and maintainability. Use when the user says /review:review-architecture, requests an architecture review, asks about coupling and cohesion, wants to analyze design or check code structure, asks to review naming or API design, or needs architecture fitness scores. Triggers on "architecture review", "coupling and cohesion", "analyze design", "check code structure", "review naming", "API design". Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Analyzes database schema design, migration safety, data integrity, query correctness, data modeling, and pipeline quality, producing fitness scores (1-10) with file:line evidence. Use when the user says /review:review-data, requests a data review, asks about schema design, migration safety, data integrity, query correctness, data modeling, or pipeline quality. Distinct from review-performance (which asks "are queries fast?"); this asks "is the schema correct? are migrations safe? will data integrity hold?" Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Runs a comprehensive project fitness review combining architecture, security, reliability, testing, performance, algorithms, data, accessibility, process, and maintainability analysis. Use when the user says "full review", "comprehensive review", "project fitness", "review everything", or wants all review skills run on current changes before shipping.

Generates just-in-time catching tests for changed code. Analyzes pending changes to find uncovered paths and writes focused tests that catch regressions at the moment of change. Use when the user says "generate tests", "jit tests", "test generation", "write tests for changes", or wants tests for recently modified code.

Analyzes code for maintainability, understandability, and simplicity fitness, producing scores (1-10) across structural complexity, comprehensibility, technical debt indicators, coupling/dependency depth, and code smell density. Use when the user says /review:review-maintainability, requests a maintainability review, asks about code complexity or understandability, wants cyclomatic/cognitive complexity analysis, or needs simplicity/maintainability fitness scores. Triggers on "maintainability review", "understandability", "code complexity", "cognitive complexity", "cyclomatic complexity", "simplicity", "code smells". Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Analyzes code for performance and scalability issues, producing fitness scores (1-10) across algorithmic efficiency, database design, caching strategy, scalability readiness, resource utilization, and data pipeline efficiency. Use when the user says /review:performance, requests a performance review, asks for scalability analysis, wants to find N+1 queries or Big-O hot paths, or needs performance fitness scores before shipping. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Evaluates a repository's development process maturity across documentation, workflow, code review, dependency management, project organization, portability, and leadership signals. Use when the user says /review:process, requests a process review, asks for development process fitness scores, wants to assess repo health or contributor readiness, or asks how well a project follows software development best practices. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Analyzes code and configuration for production reliability fitness, producing scores (1-10) across observability, availability design, timeout/retry hygiene, CI/CD maturity, incident readiness, capacity planning, and container/deploy hygiene. Use when the user says /review:review-reliability, requests a reliability review, says check observability, asks if the system is production ready, wants a monitoring setup review, asks about CI/CD pipeline quality, or wants an operational readiness assessment. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Analyzes code for security vulnerabilities and compliance risks, producing fitness scores (1-10) across input validation, authentication/authorization, data protection, dependency security, error handling/logging, and cryptography. Use when the user says "security review", "check vulnerabilities", "audit security", "security issues", /review:review-security, or wants security fitness scores before shipping. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Analyzes a codebase for software testing fitness, producing scores (1-10) across test pyramid balance, test quality, coverage strategy, performance testing, debugging support, and CI integration. Use when the user says /review:review-testing, requests a test quality review, asks about testing strategy, wants test pyramid analysis, asks about QA practices, or needs testing fitness scores before shipping. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.

Reviews a live website's usability by walking its real user tasks in a browser and scoring learnability, efficiency, memorability, error prevention, and satisfaction. Before scoring, it downloads the current Fundamentals of Software Usability article from jeffbailey.us to set its rubric, falling back to a bundled copy when offline. Use when the user says /review:usability, asks to improve a website's usability, wants a usability audit or task walkthrough of a URL, or asks why visitors struggle to find or finish things on a site. For code-level accessibility or WCAG checks of templates and components, use review-accessibility instead. Only reports findings with confidence >= 7/10.