Agent skills you can check before you install
Public SKILL.md skills from GitHub repositories with 50+ stars and from the vendors themselves, scanned and scored. Install any of them with one command in Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, GitHub Copilot or Gemini CLI.
14,533 skills from 417 repositories · updated 22 hours ago
892 skills
- qa-quartopedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowAdversarial Quarto-vs-Beamer parity QA. A critic agent compares the Quarto HTML render to the Beamer PDF benchmark for content/visual parity; a fixer agent applies fixes; loops until APPROVED or two consecutive rounds turn up nothing new (fallback cap 5 rounds). Use when user says "qa the quarto", "check parity", "does the html match the pdf?", "quarto matches beamer?", or after a translate-to-quarto run. Requires both the `.qmd` rendered and a `.pdf` benchmark.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- vaccinatepedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowQualify a check before it is allowed to clear anything — prove it can detect the failure it is meant to catch. Seeds known defects into a copy of a real artifact plus a clean control, runs the checker, and reports recall and false-positive rate into a qualification ledger. Use when the user says "does this check work", "qualify the gate", "test my reviewer", "seed defects", "vaccinate", "qualify the checks", "can I trust this review", "does it pass for the right reason", or before relying on any automated check or referee simulation for a decision that matters. NOT a code fixer and NOT a reviewer itself — it grades the grader.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- devils-advocatepedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowAdversarial 5-7 question challenge to a deck's pedagogical choices — ordering, prerequisites, cognitive load, motivation. Use when user says "devil's advocate", "poke holes in this deck", "push back on my slides", "stress-test the design", "what would a skeptical student ask?". Read-only; surfaces questions to force rethinking. Lighter than `/pedagogy-review`.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- r-package-checkpedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowRun the full R package release gate — regenerate docs, run the test suite, run R CMD check --as-cran, and triage every ERROR / WARNING / NOTE against CRAN policy before a release or submission. Use when the user says "check my R package", "R CMD check", "is this package CRAN-ready", "run devtools::check", "prepare for CRAN submission", or points at a directory containing a DESCRIPTION file. Produces a check report + CRAN-submission checklist in `quality_reports/`.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- verify-artifactpedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowProve that the file you are about to send, publish, or hand off IS the thing you mean — before it leaves your hands. Rebuild from source, check integrity, diff the derived artifact against its source, and require the recipient to echo what they received. Use before sending a paper/PDF for review, shipping a release or replication package, handing files to a coauthor or collaborator, uploading anything to an external reviewer or model, or publishing. Prevents an entire review/QA cycle from being spent on defects that exist only in the artifact, not in the work.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- differential-auditpedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowCompare two implementations of the same thing — a port (R↔Python↔Stata), a reimplementation, a replication package, a refactor, or a new version against the old — so that agreement means something. Freeze inputs first, inventory every expected output, test the comparator itself, compare every channel (not just the headline number), and give each divergence a stable ID and a smallest witness. Use for cross-language parity, replication, upgrade/regression gates, or whenever "the numbers match" is about to license a claim.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- translate-to-quartopedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowA ready-to-fork Claude Code template for academics using LaTeX/Beamer + R. Multi-agent review, quality gates, adversarial QA, and replication protocols.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- github-fix-issuefeiskyer/claude-code-settingsFix GitHub issues end-to-end — analysis, branch creation, implementation, testing, and PR submission. Use whenever the user mentions fixing a GitHub issue, says "fix issueTestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- tddcodeaholicguy/ai-devkitAI DevKit · Test-driven development — write a failing test before writing production code. Use when implementing new functionality, adding behavior, or fixing bugs during active development.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- verifycodeaholicguy/ai-devkitAI DevKit · Enforce evidence-based completion claims — require fresh command output before reporting success. Use when completing any task, fixing a bug, finishing a phase, running tests, building, deploying, or making any "it works" claim.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- dev-testingcodeaholicguy/ai-devkitAI DevKit · Testing phase guidance for adding and validating feature test coverage. Use when the user wants to write tests, update testing docs, run coverage, close coverage gaps, or run dev-lifecycle phase 8.TestingNo warnings★ 1.7K↓ —
- messaging-ab-testergooseworks-ai/goose-skillsGenerate 3-5 messaging variants for a value proposition, design structured A/B tests, and analyze results to determine which framing resonates most with ICP. Tests can run via LinkedIn organic posts, cold email subject line splits, or both. Pure reasoning for variant generation and analysis — the user deploys the tests through their own tools. Use when a team can't decide between messaging angles and needs data, not opinions.TestingNo warnings★ 1.3K↓ —
- analyze-performancegooseworks-ai/goose-skillsWeekly performance read across every channel we run: what worked, why, and what to make next, judged on the business's real number (store revenue, qualified pipeline, retained users), not platform claims. Use when: write my Monday report; how are my ads doing — which ad won?; are my ads actually making money (Meta says 4x ROAS but revenue is flat); why did sales drop this week; did the test win; is my tracking working; monthly numbers for the replan; anything on fire today. Not for acting on the recommendations (pausing, scaling, launching) — use run-paid-campaigns; not for replanning the budget — use plan-campaign.TestingNo warnings★ 1.3K↓ —
- brooks-testhyhmrright/brooks-lintTest quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow execution, poor readability. Triggers when: user asks about test quality, shares test files for review, or expresses frustration: "tests keep breaking whenever I change anything", "our tests take forever", "tests pass but bugs still reach production", or "we have too many mocks". Do NOT trigger for: writing new tests from scratch (use the regular test-writing workflow) or testing framework/syntax questions — this skill reviews an existing suite for structural quality problems, not individual test authoring.TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- brooks-sweephyhmrright/brooks-lintFull-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants to "fix everything", "sweep the codebase", "auto-fix all issues", "clean up the whole project", or asks for a single command that both diagnoses and remediates quality problems. Do NOT trigger for: read-only audits or health reports where the user only wants findings without code changes; single-dimension reviews (use the focused skill instead: brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test); server health checks, HTTP /health endpoints, Kubernetes probes, database health, or application uptime.TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- brooks-healthhyhmrright/brooks-lintCombined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a single pass, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants an overall quality assessment, asks "how healthy is this codebase?", "run all the checks", "I need a health score before the release", or wants to onboard a new team with a quality overview. Do NOT trigger for: server health checks, HTTP health endpoints, Kubernetes liveness/readiness probes, database health, or application uptime. Also do not trigger when the user specifically requests only one dimension — use the corresponding focused skill instead (brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test).TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- brooks-harnesshyhmrright/brooks-lintMaintenance orchestrator for the brooks-lint plugin itself. Runs a sequential subagent pipeline — author → eval → QA → trigger-audit → release — to add or edit a skill, refresh the eval suite, keep the four manifests + all README translations + CHANGELOG + AGENTS/GEMINI in sync, audit trigger boundaries, and cut releases. Drives the five agents in .codex/agents/ (skill-author, eval-curator, consistency-qa, trigger-boundary-auditor, release-manager). Triggers when the maintainer asks to work ON brooks-lint itself: "add a new skill", "edit the brooks-debt guide", "update the eval suite", "fix the trigger descriptions", "make this change and validate it", "release brooks-lint", "bump and publish", and follow-ups: "re-run", "re-validate", "update that skill", "redo the audit", "do the X part again". Do NOT trigger for: USING the brooks-lint analysis skills on some target codebase (that's brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test / brooks-health / brooks-sweep); generic questions about brooks-lint tTestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- brooks-harnesshyhmrright/brooks-lintMaintenance orchestrator for the brooks-lint plugin itself. Runs a sequential subagent pipeline — author → eval → QA → trigger-audit → release — to add or edit a skill, refresh the eval suite, keep the four manifests + all README translations + CHANGELOG + AGENTS/GEMINI in sync, audit trigger boundaries, and cut releases. Drives the five agents in .claude/agents/ (skill-author, eval-curator, consistency-qa, trigger-boundary-auditor, release-manager). Triggers when the maintainer asks to work ON brooks-lint itself: "add a new skill", "edit the brooks-debt guide", "update the eval suite", "fix the trigger descriptions", "make this change and validate it", "release brooks-lint", "bump and publish", and follow-ups: "re-run", "re-validate", "update that skill", "redo the audit", "do the X part again". Do NOT trigger for: USING the brooks-lint analysis skills on some target codebase (that's brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test / brooks-health / brooks-sweep); generic questions about brooks-lint TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- crabboxopenclaw/crabboxDetect and use Crabbox for repository tests and validation on remote runners. Use when crabbox.yaml or .crabbox.yaml exists, the crabbox CLI is available, or work needs remote compute, a clean or reusable environment, target-platform coverage, or auditable execution evidence.TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —Also in 1 other repo
- tddhashgraph-online/awesome-codex-pluginsUse when implementing or fixing production code with tests.TestingNo warnings★ 1.4K↓ —
- voice-cardgooseworks-ai/goose-skillsBuilds or updates a voice card: how one account or person actually writes, measured from about 8 or more of their real posts (length, casing, emoji, openings, pet phrases, opinions with their source). When there are too few posts, it runs a short interview instead. It ends with a test that checks a draft against the card. The brand's rules always beat the card. Use alone when you already have the account's posts or the person on hand; otherwise run the playbook for the job (e.g. run-organic-social, write-outreach, email-lifecycle).TestingNo warnings★ 1.3K↓ —
- hire-or-passmohitagw15856/pm-claude-skillsTurn a hiring debrief into a typed decision — hire, hire at a different level, get more signal, or pass — from rubric evidence only, with probabilities and confidence. Use when asked should we hire this candidate, run the debrief, hire or no-hire, or when interviewers disagree and the manager has to call it. Produces the evidence state per competency, the four-way decision with probabilities, the act-or-hold verdict, and when holding, the exact competency to test and who tests it. Decision support for a human decision — a person owns the hire.TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- tdd-workflowmohitagw15856/pm-claude-skillsDrive a feature with a disciplined test-driven development loop — red, green, refactor. Use when implementing a feature or fixing a bug and you want tests to lead, or when asked to 'do this with TDD' / write the test first. Produces a step-by-step red-green-refactor plan: the failing test to write first, the minimal code to pass it, and the refactor — one small cycle at a time.TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —
- api-test-planmohitagw15856/pm-claude-skillsPlan tests for an API endpoint or service — functional, negative, and contract. Use when asked to test an API, write API test cases, plan REST/GraphQL endpoint testing, or validate an API contract. Produces an API test plan — per-endpoint cases (status codes, schema, auth, validation, errors), boundary/negative cases, contract checks, and non-functional notes — so the API is verified beyond the happy 200.TestingNo warnings★ 1.5K↓ —