Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Automates the end-to-end development workflow: specify requirements via structured interview, generate a plan with contract-first design, execute with parallel research agents and hook-based guards, and manage PR states from draft to review. Includes autonomous bug diagnosis, multi-source technical research, knowledge extraction from PRs, and verification with static checks, CLI tests, and browser QA.
npx claudepluginhub team-attention/hoyeon --plugin hoyeonBehavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
Before starting any work, output a `CHARTER_CHECK` block. This is mandatory — no implementation or analysis begins without it.
Browser Explorer agent that controls the real Chrome browser via chromux (raw CDP). Parallel-safe — each agent gets its own isolated tab. Uses an isolated Chrome profile (logins persist across sessions, no bot detection). Use when you need to explore external web services (Crisp, Reddit, dashboards, etc.).
Extract business requirements from Q&A log. PM perspective — WHO/WHY/WHAT/SUCCESS/SCOPE/RISK.
Audits clarify Q&A logs for remaining material ambiguity across requirements, design, domain, and plan modes.
Analyze an open-source project from What/Why perspective (not how-it's-implemented). Use when the user says "/analyze-oss", "분석해줘 이 오픈소스", "이 레포 뭐하는거야", "analyze this repo", "what does X do", "이거 왜 쓰는거야", "이 라이브러리 분석", provides a GitHub URL and wants understanding, or asks to deeply understand an OSS project's purpose, value, target users, and usage flow. Clones the repo to ~/opensource-analysis/<repo-name>/ (git pull if already exists), dispatches parallel subagents per analysis lens, then synthesizes a What/Why-focused report in chat. Supports optional user-specific follow-up questions.
"/blueprint", "blueprint", "task graph", "contract derivation", "execution plan", "plan tasks from requirements", "contract-first planning" Turn requirements.md into an executable blueprint (plan.json + contracts.md). Five phases: Contracts → Tasks → Journeys → Verify Plan → Commit. Sits between /specify and /execute. Scope-adaptive (greenfield → bugfix). Uses hoyeon-cli (plan.json only; requirements.md is read as-is via Read tool).
Recon-first browser automation. Orchestrator explores the site first via chromux, saves a guide file with insights, then delegates execution to browser-explorer agent. Use when: "/browser-work", "브라우저 작업", "사이트에서 해줘", "웹에서 해줘", "LinkedIn에서", "크롬으로", "browser task", "automate this site".
Root cause based one-shot bug fix. debugger diagnosis → requirements.md generation → /execute. /bugfix "error description" Full investigation pipeline: debugger + gap-analyzer + standard verify. QA suggestion after successful fix.
This skill should be used when the user wants to verify their changes before pushing, or update the project's rule checklists. Phase 1: validate changed files against .hoyeon/rules/ checklists and report PASS/WARN. Phase 2 (conditional): propose rule additions when unmatched patterns are detected. Essential before git push. Trigger phrases: "check", "checklist", "verify changes", "what did I miss", "pre-push check", "cascading changes", "any more changes needed", "update checklist", "update rules", "rules update", "체크", "체크리스트", "변경 확인", "빠뜨린 거 없나", "push 전 확인", "뭐 더 건드려야 해?", "연쇄 변경 확인", "규칙 갱신".
Matches all tools
Hooks run on every tool call, not just specific ones
Executes bash commands
Hook triggers when Bash tool is used
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
Corca Workflow Framework — consolidated hooks and skill orchestration for structured development sessions
Production-ready Claude Code configuration with role-based workflows (PM→Lead→Designer→Dev→QA), safety hooks, 44 commands, 19 skills, 8 agents, 43 rules, 30 hook scripts across 19 events, auto-learning pipeline, hook profiles, and multi-language coding standards
Hand off context to any AI coding agent. Creates comprehensive handoff documents that capture the current task, progress, modified files, and all relevant context needed to seamlessly continue work in any AI assistant (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, Aider, etc.).
Context-driven development framework that enables structured lifecycle for software projects: Context → Spec & Plan → Implement
Specification-driven development workflow: specify → plan → tasks → implement
PROJECT.md-first autonomous development with hybrid auto-fix documentation. 8-agent pipeline, auto-orchestration, docs auto-update on commit (true vibe coding). Knowledge base system with 90% faster repeat research. Strict mode enforces SDLC best practices automatically. Works for ANY Python/JavaScript/TypeScript/Go project.
Interactive markdown review with web UI - review plans and documents with checkbox approvals and inline comments
Developer workflow tools: community scanning, technical decision-making
Collect and synthesize opinions from multiple AI Agents for Claude Code
Three lenses for clarity: vague requirements → specs (vague), strategy blind spots → 4-quadrant playbook (unknown), content vs form → leverage shift (metamedium)
Multi-account Google Calendar integration with parallel querying and conflict detection
Modifies files
Hook triggers on file write and edit operations
Modifies files
Hook triggers on file write and edit operations
Uses power tools
Uses Bash, Write, or Edit tools
Uses power tools
Uses Bash, Write, or Edit tools
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
All you need is requirements. A Claude Code plugin that derives requirements from your intent, verifies every derivation, and delivers traced code — without you writing a plan.
Quick Start · Philosophy · The Chain · Commands · Agents
AI can build anything. The hard part is knowing what to build — precisely.
Most AI coding fails at the input, not the output. The bottleneck isn't AI capability. It's human clarity. You say "add dark mode" and there are a hundred decisions hiding behind those three words.
Most tools either force you to enumerate them upfront, or ignore them entirely. Hoyeon does neither — it derives them. Layer by layer. Gate by gate. From intent to verified code.
You don't know what you want until you're asked the right questions.
Requirements aren't artifacts you produce before coding. They're discoveries — surfaced through structured interrogation of your intent. Every "add a feature" conceals unstated assumptions. Every "fix the bug" hides a root cause you haven't named yet.
Hoyeon's job is to find what you haven't said.
You say: "add dark mode toggle"
│
Hoyeon asks: "System preference or manual?" ← assumption exposed
"Which components need variants?" ← scope clarified
"Persist where? How?" ← decision forced
│
Result: 3 requirements, 8 sub-requirements, 4 tasks — all linked
This is not just process. It's built on three beliefs about how AI coding should work.
Get the requirements right, and the code writes itself. Get them wrong, and no amount of code fixes it.
Most AI tools jump straight to tasks — "create file X, edit function Y." But tasks are derivatives. They change when requirements change. If you start from tasks, you're building on sand.
Hoyeon starts from goals and derives downward through a layer chain:
Goal → Decisions → Requirements → Sub-requirements → Tasks
Requirements are refined from multiple angles before a single line of code is written. Interviewers probe assumptions. Gap analyzers find what's missing. UX reviewers check user impact. Tradeoff analyzers weigh alternatives. Each perspective sharpens the requirements until they're precise enough to generate verifiable sub-requirements.
The chain is directional: requirements produce tasks, never the reverse. If requirements change, sub-requirements and tasks are re-derived. This is why Hoyeon can recover from mid-execution blockers — the requirements are still valid, only the tasks need adjustment.
LLMs are non-deterministic. The system around them doesn't have to be.
An LLM given the same prompt twice may produce different code. This is the fundamental challenge of AI-assisted development. Hoyeon's answer: constrain the LLM with programmatic control so that non-determinism doesn't propagate.
Three mechanisms enforce this:
requirements.md + plan.json as structured artifacts — /specify produces requirements.md (the what). /blueprint produces plan.json with contracts and task graphs (the how). Every agent reads from these shared artifacts. No agent invents its own context. No information lives only in a conversation. These artifacts are the shared memory that survives context windows, compaction, and agent handoffs.
CLI-enforced structure — hoyeon-cli validates plan structure and task state transitions. Field names, types, required relationships — all checked programmatically before the LLM ever sees the data. The CLI doesn't suggest structure; it rejects invalid structure.
Derivation chain as contract — Goal → Decisions → Requirements → Sub-requirements → Tasks are linked. Each layer references the one above it. A sub-requirement traces to a requirement. A task traces to requirements via fulfills. If the chain breaks, the gate blocks. This means: if you have valid requirements, the system will produce a result — deterministically routed, even if the LLM's individual outputs vary.
The LLM does the creative work. The system ensures it stays on rails.
If a human has to check it, the system failed to automate it.
Every sub-requirement in requirements.md is a testable behavioral statement:
{
"id": "R1.1",
"behavior": "Clicking dark mode toggle switches theme to dark"
}