using-elyra-skills
Navigate the elyra-skills registry - pick the right skill for the task, chain skills across the development lifecycle, and combine them without conflicts. Use when unsure which skill applies, when a task spans multiple skills, when the user asks what skills exist or how they fit together, or at the start of a large multi-phase task.
A map of the registry: which skill to load when, how they chain, and how to combine them without tripping over each other.
When to use
- Unsure which skill fits the current task
- A task spans multiple phases (idea → ship) and needs a sequence
- The user asks "what skills do you have?" or "how do these fit together?"
- Kicking off a large feature where the right opening move matters
Selection rules
- Match the task's phase, not its noun. "Fix the payment API" might be
debugging(it's broken),resilience-patterns(it's flaky), ordeprecation-migration(it's being replaced). Ask what's actually happening before loading. - One primary skill at a time. A primary skill drives the process and the output format; others are consulted for their checklists, not their workflow.
- Vague input → discovery skill first. When the request can't be restated as a verifiable outcome, start with
idea-refine(new ideas) orcodebase-exploration(unfamiliar code) — never with implementation. - No skill fits → no skill. Skills encode workflows; trivial tasks don't need one. Loading a skill for a one-line fix is overhead.
The lifecycle map
DEFINE PLAN BUILD VERIFY SHIP OPERATE MAINTAIN
idea-refine → task-breakdown → incremental- → debugging → ci-cd-pipeline → observability → tech-debt-triage
spec-writing implementation test-writing release- incident- refactoring
threat-modeling codebase- code-review checklist response dependency-update
api-design exploration security-audit feature-flag- runbook-author deprecation-migration
architecture- error-handling accessibility- rollout cost-
review caching-strategy review changelog optimization
adr-author resilience- i18n-review conventional-
patterns performance- commits
database- budget pr-description
migration data-privacy- git-workflow
llm-feature- review
design code-style-guide
Cross-cutting (any phase): context-engineering, onboarding-doc, git-workflow.
Stack-specific skills
Stack skills are selected in addition to the phase skill, never instead of it. The phase skill drives the workflow; the stack skill supplies the framework-specific rules and checklists for the steps.
| Project signal | Stack skills |
|---|---|
Laravel (composer.json has laravel/framework) |
laravel-eloquent-performance, laravel-queue-design, laravel-testing |
Laravel + laravel/ai |
laravel-ai-features (layered on llm-feature-design) |
| TALL (Livewire, Flux) | livewire-component-design, flux-ui-patterns |
| VILT (Vue, Inertia) | vue-component-patterns, inertia-patterns |
PrimeVue in package.json |
primevue-patterns |
| Filament panels | filament-resource-design |
Examples of the pairing:
- Slow Laravel page →
debugging(primary, owns the loop) +laravel-eloquent-performance(the stack checklist inside steps 2–4) - New TALL feature →
task-breakdown→incremental-implementation(primary) +livewire-component-design/flux-ui-patternsconsulted per task - Testing phase in a Laravel app →
test-writingfor what to test,laravel-testingfor how to test it here
Detect the stack from manifests (composer.json, package.json) before assuming — don't load Laravel skills into a Django repo because the user said "backend".
Standard chains
New feature, end to end:
idea-refine → spec-writing → task-breakdown → incremental-implementation → code-review → release-checklist
Skip idea-refine when the problem is already crisp; skip spec-writing for tasks under ~1 hour.
Sensitive feature (auth, money, PII): insert threat-modeling during spec — its mitigations become acceptance criteria — and security-audit + data-privacy-review at review.
Bug in production: incident-response (if users are hurting now) → debugging (root cause) → test-writing (regression test). Postmortem actions may spawn resilience-patterns or observability work.
Inherited/unfamiliar codebase: codebase-exploration → tech-debt-triage → then the normal feature chain, with context-engineering to write down what you learned.
Replacing something old: codebase-exploration (blast radius) → deprecation-migration (the plan) → database-migration / dependency-update for the mechanics.
Combining without conflict
- The primary skill owns the output format. If
incremental-implementationis driving and a step needs a migration, applydatabase-migration's rules inside that step's boundaries — don't switch report formats mid-task. - Review skills (
code-review,security-audit,accessibility-review,i18n-review) stack cleanly: run as separate passes, merge findings into one severity-ranked list. - When two skills disagree (e.g.
refactoringsays "small steps", deadline says "big bang"), surface the trade-off to the user — don't silently pick.
Output format
When recommending skills for a task:
**Task as I understand it:** …
**Primary skill:** `<name>` — why.
**Supporting:** `<name>` (used for: …)
**Chain (if multi-phase):** `a` → `b` → `c`, with handoff points.
**Not loading:** `<name>` — why not (e.g. overlap, overkill).
Anti-patterns
- ❌ Loading three skills and blending their workflows into mush — one primary, others consult
- ❌ Skipping discovery (
idea-refine/codebase-exploration) because the user sounded confident - ❌ Forcing a skill onto a trivial task for ceremony's sake
- ❌ Following a skill's letter against the project's reality — skills encode defaults, the codebase wins
- ❌ Running the full lifecycle chain on a bugfix — match weight to the task