AI Agent & Automation Workflows

Audit, validate, and troubleshoot Agentation integrations in frontend apps. Use when annotations, MCP registration, endpoint sync, webhook delivery, or watch mode readiness are failing.

Create or refactor AGENTS.md and linked instruction docs using progressive disclosure. Use when the user wants repo-specific agent guidance organized, deduplicated, or routed cleanly, not ordinary product documentation edits.

Create, review, and validate an alignment checkpoint. Use when a request is ambiguous, high-stakes, multi-step, or requires explicit approval before tool use.

Analyze, review, and plan architecture alternatives through a structured interview. Use when the user needs tradeoffs surfaced before implementation or a Linear decision note instead of an ADR.

Review, create, and validate Bash scripts when shell work needs strict mode, quoting safety, portability, or interpreter-compatible behavior.

Create and validate implementation-grade CLI specifications when command trees, JSON contracts, dry-run plans, errors, or agent-ready behavior need a binding spec.

Turn Slack code-fixes, CodeRabbit, Codex Review, CI, and check-status noise into a repo-and-PR action queue. Use when Jamie asks for a daily code-fixes digest, recent review-noise triage, or what needs fixing across active engineering repos.

Create, install, validate, and orchestrate Codex custom subagents as standalone TOMLs with canonical global defaults (~/dev/configs/codex/agents/{name}/{name}.toml, ~/dev/configs/codex/config.toml) plus optional project scope (${projectroot}/.codex/agents/{name}/{name}.toml), where project config writes occur only when runtime-limit flags are explicitly requested.

Use when creating, installing, validating, folding, or troubleshooting Codex custom subagent role TOML and discoverability config.

Design, review, and validate Codex app automations when recurring background workflows need safe scheduling, scope, preflight, and consolidation.

Use when a project or Codex runtime needs environment TOML created, triaged, or updated with safe setup, actions, exec-server providers, and validation evidence.

Use when creating, auditing, upgrading, or validating Codex hook packs, hooks.json files, hook scripts, or repo-local/user-level .codex hook installs.

Install, update, audit, diagnose, and explain @brainwav/coding-harness when repository governance, harness init, CI migration, or action-sync needs live command evidence.

Analyze, compare, and recommend a Codex build primitive. Use when the user is packaging or automating a workflow and the right primitive is unclear.

Generate, validate, and refresh @brainwav/diagram architecture artifacts when repo diagrams, context packs, PR impact, or CI drift evidence is needed.

Analyze, design, or triage LLM evaluation workflows. Use when the user asks for evaluator design, error analysis, judge prompts, RAG evals, synthetic data, or review tooling.

Diagnose, fix, and validate mise runtime failures. Use when commands fail from mise config, missing runtimes, stale pins, trust prompts, or shell activation drift.

Analyze broad frontend design requests and route them to the correct local UI skill after classifying intent and maturity. Use when the user asks for frontend design generally and the specific design owner is not yet clear.

Design or implement production-ready frontend screens and components. Use this skill when UI build, redesign, accessibility, layout, or state coverage is needed.

Use when a Codex goal/task is stuck, hanging, not finishing, or needs status. Reads goal.md, state.yaml, receipts.jsonl; syncs reported status with board files; fixes invalid state.yaml; classifies blockers; decides done. Not for ordinary reviews or one-off fixes.

Define problem scope, requirements, and decision options before spec or plan stages. Use when the user has ambiguity in what to build, why it matters, or which direction to choose.

Review PRs, branches, diffs, and workflow artifacts for package-level go/no-go readiness with severity-ranked synthesis. Use when users need readiness synthesis rather than detailed technical-risk critique.

Run a bounded Harness Engineering lifecycle across multiple stages. Use when the user wants coordinated brainstorm, spec, plan, work, review, and fix flow rather than one isolated stage.

Analyze and validate compound Harness Engineering run state, blockers, validation status, and Linear context. Use when lifecycle runs drift, gates fail, blockers appear, or compound work needs refresh.