Justify by correctness, never by convention. Use when a design, fix, API, macro, library surface, hook message, or naming decision is defended by 'it's what the codebase does', 'the established pattern', 'the canonical lane does it', 'more ergonomic', 'less churn', 'already wired', or 'out of scope to change'. Prevalence is not evidence. Re-derive from correctness, name the bug the alternative causes, and be confident in the correct call even when the codebase already happens to do it.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/checkpickerupper-skills:pizza1The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Justify by correctness, never by convention.
Justify by correctness, never by convention.
You defended a design by pointing at what the codebase already does. That is not a correctness argument. Re-derive from first principles.
If a codebase named every variable pizza1, pizza2, pizza3, that would not make those names good. So "it's what the codebase uses" is never a reason a design is correct. It is incidental. Prevalence is not evidence.
Delete these from the next response. None of them is a reason:
A guard must say why the banned shape is wrong: the concrete bug it causes. It must not say only "this isn't how we do it here." If a deny message cannot name the failure it prevents, the hook is pizza1. Fix the message to name the failure, or drop the rule.
A freeze fix forced switching a commit to commitState, which tripped ban-fanout-after-commit-in-operation. The agent defended commit-then-run ordering by pointing at a canonical operation that did the same thing.
That is pizza1: convention, not correctness.
Correct reasoning:
Creates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.
npx claudepluginhub checkpickerupper/skills