name: review description: >- Exhaustive, evidence-driven code review of the current branch's pull request. Surfaces every actionable issue (correctness, reliability, performance, maintainability, and architecture), including related issues in unchanged code discovered while reviewing the PR, walks the findings one at a time — fully explaining each in chat before asking for a decision (fix in this PR or open a follow-up GitHub issue), then implements chosen in-PR fixes with regression tests where a harness exists, then commits, pushes, and closes qualifying GitHub feedback without a separate
name: issuefix description: >- Address a GitHub issue from the current repository by implementing a fix from a dedicated issue branch/worktree and opening a PR that auto-closes the issue when merged. Use when the user wants to "fix issue #N", "tackle this issue", or pastes a GitHub issue URL/number and wants it resolved. The skill validates the issue belongs to the current repo, runs preflight (branch/worktree), asks any necessary clarifying questions, then ships the PR. user_invocable: true
name: review description: >- Exhaustive, evidence-driven code review of the current branch's pull request. Surfaces every actionable issue (correctness, reliability, performance, maintainability, and architecture), walks the findings one at a time to collect a decision on each, then implements the chosen fixes with regression tests where a harness exists. Requires an open PR on the current branch. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or critique a PR. user_invocable: true
name: team-review description: >- Runs a multi-agent code review by launching focused review subagents, deduplicating their findings, and walking the user through each finding interactively. Defaults to the current PR when no review scope is given. Use when the user asks for /team-review, team-review, team review, parallel review, multi-agent review, review with subagents, or wants a deeper code review than a single-pass review. user_invocable: true
name: review description: >- Exhaustive, evidence-driven code review over any scope — staged or unstaged changes, a branch diff, a PR, a single commit, a commit range, selected files/modules, or the whole repository. Surfaces every actionable issue (correctness, reliability, performance, maintainability, and architecture), walks the findings one at a time to collect a decision on each, then implements the chosen fixes with regression tests where a harness exists. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or critique staged/unstaged changes, a
name: team-review description: >- Runs a multi-agent code review by launching focused review subagents, deduplicating their findings, and walking the user through each finding interactively. Defaults to the current PR when no review scope is given. Use when the user asks for /team-review, team-review, team review, parallel review, multi-agent review, review with subagents, or wants a deeper code review than a single-pass review. user_invocable: true
Last updated: 2026-05-23
Build a service that monitors TVW videos and transcripts, lets users track specific government activities, and notifies them when relevant things happen in a video.
The main technical challenge is not speech-to-text. It is assigning each spoken statement to the correct real-world speaker.
jubishop
/ agent-sdk-comparison.md
Created
May 10, 2026 06:32
Comparative breakdown: Cursor SDK vs OpenAI Codex SDK vs Claude Agent SDK
Prepared May 10, 2026.
This compares three coding-agent SDKs:
- Cursor TypeScript SDK: https://cursor.com/docs/sdk/typescript
- OpenAI Codex SDK: https://developers.openai.com/codex/sdk
- Claude Agent SDK: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview
NewerOlder