Search: "what"

AI agents can generate code, but still struggle to understand what they build. Reticle brings Jev-style machine-native runtime perception to web & desktop applications.

Compares Trailmark code graphs at two source code snapshots (git commits, tags, or directories) to surface security-relevant structural changes. Detects new attack paths, complexity shifts, blast radius growth, taint propagation changes, and privilege boundary modifications that text diffs miss. Use when comparing code between commits or tags, analyzing structural evolution, detecting attack surface growth, reviewing what changed between audit snapshots, or finding security-relevant changes that text diffs miss.

Draws the 12 Houses of the Zodiac Tarot spread to inject entropy into planning when prompts are vague, ambiguous, or casually delegated. Interprets the spread to guide next steps. Use when the user says 'let fate decide', 'YOLO', 'whatever', 'idk', or other nonchalant phrases, makes Yu-Gi-Oh references, or when you are about to arbitrarily pick between multiple reasonable approaches. Prefer over asking clarifying questions when the user's tone is casual or playful rather than precision-seeking.

Performs security-focused differential review of code changes. Adapts analysis depth to codebase size, uses git blame for context, calculates blast radius by counting callers, checks test coverage of modified code, and generates a markdown report. Use when reviewing a PR, commit, or diff for security vulnerabilities, checking whether a change re-introduces a previously fixed bug, asking what else a change could break, or finding which modified code has no test covering it.

Designs and improves fuzzing harnesses for C/C++ and Rust. Covers mapping raw bytes onto a target API, generating structured inputs, avoiding non-determinism and false crashes, and deciding what to fuzz together. Use when writing a first LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput or fuzz_target! harness, when a campaign finds nothing or reports crashes that will not reproduce, or when the target API needs structured rather than raw input.

Interprets Culture Index (CI) surveys, behavioral profiles, and personality assessment data. Supports individual profile interpretation, team composition analysis (gas/brake/glue), burnout detection, profile comparison, hiring profiles, manager coaching, interview transcript analysis for trait prediction, candidate debrief, onboarding planning, and conflict mediation. Accepts extracted JSON or PDF input via OpenCV extraction script. Use when the user shares a Culture Index PDF or JSON profile, asks what someone's CI traits mean, compares Culture Index profiles across a team or against a hiring profile, or asks about burnout risk from Survey-versus-Job gaps.

Measures and interprets what a fuzzing campaign actually reaches, using llvm-cov, lcov, or a fuzzer's own coverage output. Covers baselining a new campaign, reading coverage reports, and turning uncovered regions into harness, seed, or dictionary work. Use when a fuzzer plateaus, when judging whether a harness is effective, after changing a harness, or when asking why some code is never reached.

Understand a codebase before looking for bugs in it - what each function assumes, what it guarantees, and what it depends on elsewhere. Use when starting an audit, threat model, or architecture review on unfamiliar code, and before any vulnerability-hunting pass.

Prepares codebases for security review using Trail of Bits' checklist. Helps set review goals, runs static analysis tools, increases test coverage, removes dead code, ensures accessibility, and generates documentation (flowcharts, user stories, inline comments). Use when preparing your own codebase to be audited by someone else, getting a repository review-ready before an external security review, deciding what to fix before auditors start, or asking what assessors need from a project. For understanding unfamiliar code you are about to audit, use audit-context-building instead.

Check code against the documentation that specifies it - which requirements hold, which the code contradicts, which are absent, and what the code does that no document mentions. Use when comparing an implementation against a whitepaper, protocol spec, or design document.

Submit feedback on an Expo skill—or Expo itself—and control bundled anonymous usage telemetry (off by default / opt-in). Submit feedback with: npx --yes submit-expo-feedback@latest "ACTIONABLE_FEEDBACK". Optionally add either or both: --category "CATEGORY" and --subject "SUBJECT". Replace the uppercase placeholders before running. Use when a skill was useful, confusing, broken, missing context, or worth improving; when Expo, Expo CLI, EAS CLI, docs, or MCP worked well or fell short; when an AI agent repeatedly failed, got stuck, or needed the user to take over an Expo task (report it as an eval candidate); or when the user explicitly asks to enable or disable telemetry (tracking), check its status, or understand what it collects.

Extracts and analyzes competitors' ads from ad libraries (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) to understand what messaging, problems, and creative approaches are working. Helps inspire and improve your own ad campaigns.