テスト・セキュリティのスキル

Validate, lint, audit, or check Fluent Bit configs (INPUT, FILTER, OUTPUT, tag routing).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Validate, lint, audit, or fix bash/shell/.sh scripts via ShellCheck.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Validate, lint, audit, or debug Ansible playbooks, roles, inventories, FQCN, tasks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when an application issues and validates its own first-party JWT access and refresh tokens, including authentication filters, password encoding, RBAC, and method security. For JWTs issued by Keycloak, Auth0, Okta, Cognito, or another authorization server, use oauth2-resource-server.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when writing tests of any kind — unit, slice, or integration. Covers test structure, naming conventions, Mockito patterns, @WebMvcTest, @DataJpaTest, and Testcontainers setup.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when preparing a Spring Boot 3 application for Boot 4, upgrading to Boot 3.5 first, removing deprecated APIs, auditing dependencies, or planning a staged Framework 7 migration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Before showing the user any substantive GTM deliverable (positioning, value prop, homepage, launch post, pricing, sales script, the brief, the market research, or the roadmap), stress-test it against the standard as an independent critic, because the agent that wrote it is the worst judge of whether it is good. Use as a gate right before presenting work, or when the user asks whether something is actually strong.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Structure a dev-tool homepage that converts developers into champions. Use when the landing page is written for the buyer instead of the developer, reads as salesy, buries what the product does, or makes it hard to start. Pairs with the ShipReady homepage audit.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Write code through a disciplined, BDD-framed Test-Driven Development loop: build a behavior test list, then drive each behavior through red-green-refactor with an enforced observed-failure gate. Use when the user wants to implement, build, or write code test-first, "do TDD", follow "red-green-refactor", drive code from tests, choose the next test by the Transformation Priority Premise (TPP) or ZOMBIES ordering, or grow a feature behavior-by-behavior with tests leading. This skill writes and changes code; it does not produce a test plan document (use automated-test-planning, or manual-test-planning for a plan a person runs by hand), review or audit existing code (use code-review), restructure existing code outside a TDD loop (use refactor, or plan-a-change to plan a multi-module restructure), specify what a feature should do (use plan-a-feature), or find the root cause of a bug (use investigate). Runs its loop to completion without pausing for review; to review each behavior as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIAL_ID and data path.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use research.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a feature specification from scratch with plan-a-feature and publishes it to a user-specified Confluence location, posting the spec as a parent page and each companion artifact (decision log, team findings, technical notes) as a child page beneath it. Use when the user wants a new feature planned, designed, scoped, or specified AND posted to a Confluence space or page. Requires a configured Atlassian MCP server. Does not plan to local files only — use plan-a-feature. Does not publish an arbitrary existing markdown file — use markdown-to-confluence. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features to Confluence — use project-documentation-to-confluence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Sharpens and stress-tests an existing plan file through multiple codebase-grounded review passes, editing it in place and recording every finding and iteration in cross-referenced companion files. Use this skill whenever the user wants to iterate on, refine, tighten, or improve a plan. Also use it when the user asks to verify, validate, or confirm feasibility of an approach. Does not implement plan steps, write test plans, review code, or investigate bugs, and does not generate new plans from scratch — use plan-a-feature for a new plan. Runs its review rounds to completion without pausing between them; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produce a plain-language manual test plan from the context supplied to it — an executive summary, a high-level list of named tests, and a detail section per test with the steps a person follows by hand and the outcomes they should expect. Use when you want to create, draft, generate, or outline a manual test plan, manual QA steps, hands-on verification steps, or an acceptance walkthrough for a feature, change, branch, plan, or PR. When the plan holds more than five tests and at least two natural categories emerge, both the test list and the detail sections are organized under plain-language categories. When nothing in the supplied context can be manually tested, it says so and asks for more context instead of producing a document. Does not analyze code for automated test coverage gaps — use automated-test-planning. Does not write test code — use tdd. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Applies Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard to a target you already have — a file on disk, text pasted into the prompt, or a draft already produced in the conversation — by dispatching the readability-editor to rewrite its prose so the main point comes first, headings are descriptive, each paragraph carries one idea, and sentences stay short and active, while preserving every fact. Use when you want to make a document or draft readable, edit or polish prose for readability, clean up writing, tighten wording, or re-apply the readability standard to something already written. Rewrites prose only, leaving code, diagrams, and citation identifiers unchanged. Does not write new feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not restructure code or review it — use refactor to restructure code and code-review to audit it. Does not judge the underlying work or raise findings; it only rewrites the writing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Convert a stakeholder summary markdown file into a single self-contained HTML executive report — bottom line and decision asks up front, supporting detail later — styled with a Test Double-derived palette and self-contained mermaid diagrams. Use when the user wants to turn a stakeholder summary, executive summary, or business summary into an HTML report, generate an HTML version of a summary doc, or produce a shareable HTML file from a summary markdown. Produces an HTML sibling file only; does not publish anything.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not plan a restructure of code that already exists — use plan-a-change. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research. Does not map the bounded contexts of existing code — use ddd-analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Build work collaboratively in reviewable pieces, handing each piece back for review before starting the next, so the person stays in the lead and steers while the work happens instead of reviewing a finished result. Use when someone says to pair with them on something, asks to collaborate rather than direct, wants to review as it goes, or wants to guide the work piece by piece — on code, on a design decision, or on writing. For a test-first build it runs tdd, for restructuring it runs refactor, for an interface contract it runs design-an-api, and for plan work it runs iterative-plan-review or plan-implementation, each collaboratively; invoke any of those directly instead to run it straight through without pausing. Does not pace someone through code that already exists and builds nothing — use code-walkthrough. Does not explain, summarize, or research something instead of producing it — use code-overview or research.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a feature implementation plan from an existing feature specification (or equivalent context) through a facilitated team conversation. Use when the user wants to plan how to implement, build, deliver, or ship a feature that has already been specified. Does not specify what the feature should do — use plan-a-feature first. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not refine or stress-test an already-written plan — use iterative-plan-review. Runs its resolution rounds to completion and holds its questions until after they finish; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Пишет unit-тесты для указанного файла или функции в стиле существующих тестов проекта. Используй, когда просят добавить тесты, покрыть код тестами или проверить граничные случаи.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit a bounded mathematical slice for missing or unusable Jacobian capabilities, beyond a single-operation review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。