テスト設計、脆弱性診断、品質保証（1.3万 件）
Use for Hono (web framework) development when Codex needs to consult Hono documentation or test Hono apps via the `hono` CLI. Trigger on requests about Hono CLI usage, searching/browsing Hono docs, or testing Hono routes without running a 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。
Test authoring guidance
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。
Automates browser interactions for web testing, form filling, screenshots, and data extraction. Use when the user needs to navigate websites, interact with web pages, fill forms, take screenshots, test web applications, or extract information from web pages.
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。
Score a repository's agentic legibility from repo-visible evidence only. Use when Codex needs to audit how easy a codebase is for coding agents to discover, bootstrap, validate, and navigate, especially for harness-engineering reviews, developer-experience audits, repo cleanup, or before/after comparisons after improving docs, tooling, or architectural constraints.
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。
This skill should be used when the user asks to "implement a DiD regression", "run a staggered difference-in-differences", "set up an event study", "implement IV / 2SLS", "run a regression discontinuity design", "build synthetic control", "do propensity score matching", "test parallel trends", "run Honest DiD", "wild cluster bootstrap", "Callaway-Sant'Anna", "Sun-Abraham", "Bacon decomposition", "double machine learning", "debiased machine learning", "DML / DoubleML", "cross-fitting", "causal forest", "heterogeneous treatment effects", "ATE with ML controls", "which causal design fits my data", or needs causal-inference code, diagnostics, or identification writing in Python (StatsPAI), R, or Stata. Based on Scott Cunningham's Causal Inference: The Mixtape, with runnable validated templates, ML-based causal inference patterns, and Journal of Finance applications.
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。
QA a change by driving the running dev app like a real QA engineer - start the server and a real browser session, write a checklist from the agreed requirements and the diff, execute every item with evidence, then go looking for anything that looks off even where the diff did not touch. Reports findings by severity and separates regressions from pre-existing problems. Use after a change is implemented and the gates pass, when the user asks to "QA this", "test it in the app", or "check it actually works".
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。
Implement a change end-to-end from a freeform prompt - settle the requirements, design the engineering approach and get it approved, implement with TDD, run the format/compile/credo/coveralls gates without shortcuts, self-review the diff like a senior engineer, QA the finished change in the running app, record a demo video when it is visible there, then commit and open the PR. Use when the user wants to "complete an issue", "work the ticket", or hands over a description of something to build.
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。
Test-driven development with a red-green-clean loop, running mix credo on the whole project at the end of every vertical slice so standards violations are fixed in the slice that introduced them instead of piling into a refactor at the end. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
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 for tradeoff analysis, or when the user must pick between concrete options: "A or B?", "which library should we use?", "build vs buy", "compare these approaches". Scores options on weighted criteria, tests sensitivity and reversibility. Skip for open ideation or single-option reviews.
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 for a pre-mortem, or before committing to a plan, launch or migration: "what could go wrong?", "stress test this plan", "how might this fail?", "risks before we ship". Assumes failure, lists causes, ranks them and sets mitigations. Skip for explaining a failure that already happened.
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。
WCAG 準拠のアクセシビリティチェックをチェックリスト駆動で実行するスキル。 コンポーネント・ページ・PR に対して Pass/Fail/N/A/Needs review の構造化レポートを 生成し、エビデンスと修正案を提示する。 「アクセシビリティチェック」「a11y チェック」「WCAG をチェック」「a11y レビュー」 「アクセシビリティ監査」「WCAG 準拠確認」「アクセシビリティレポート」への言及、 または PR やコンポーネントのアクセシビリティレビュー依頼で発動する。 English: "check accessibility", "a11y audit", "a11y check", "WCAG review", "accessibility report", "screen reader test", "review for a11y", "review this PR for accessibility", "axe audit"
Delegate implementation to Codex or to a sandboxed Claude Code (`claude -p`), have a model from the other vendor review the diff, send it back to iterate, gate on the full test suite, and ship it as a PR. Use this whenever the user wants Codex or a sandboxed Claude to write code, mentions handing off / delegating implementation to one of those backends, asks for a cross-vendor review of delegated code, asks to work through a plan or spec unit-by-unit with an implementation backend doing the coding, or wants a review-and-merge loop wrapped around delegated output — and also when resuming such a loop ("keep going", "next unit", "继续下一个"). It encodes constraints that are expensive to rediscover: the implementer runs in the real environment behind backend-specific git and publication boundaries, must not be pointed at a full test suite by default, and its self-report is a claim rather than evidence. This loop expects an approved plan or an equivalently precise spec; settle an unsolved high-level goal into a plan first, using the engineering-mode skill when it is installed.
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。
Delegate implementation work to a dedicated implementer subagent, then review its diff, send it back to iterate, gate on the full test suite, and ship it as a PR. Use this whenever the user wants a separate model to write code, mentions handing off / delegating implementation, asks to work through a plan or spec unit-by-unit with a subagent doing the coding, or wants a review-and-merge loop wrapped around delegated output — and also when resuming such a loop ("keep going", "next unit", "继续下一个"). It encodes constraints that are expensive to rediscover: the implementer self-reports success, must not run the full test suite by default, must not touch git, and its report is a claim rather than evidence. Cursor port of implementation-loop. This loop expects an approved plan or an equivalently precise spec; settle an unsolved high-level goal into a plan first, using the cursor-engineering-mode skill (it ships in this same plugin).
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。
Show where this machine's Claude Code tokens went - cost by token type, context tax per tool, biggest tool outputs.
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 adversarially reviewing a document that makes formal or technical claims — math derivations, physics papers, statistical analyses, benchmark reports, whitepapers. Inventories every equation and quantitative claim, verifies each AS NAMED in the text (never a paraphrase or a neighboring statement), and classifies VERIFIED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE / VACUOUS. Triggers on "check this paper", "verify these claims", "is this derivation right", "review this proof", "audit this benchmark", "does the math hold up". For source-code review see code-review-and-quality; for skill/agent library audits see skill-library-review; for content quality scoring see content-ops.
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。
Cross-stack security review — auditing vulnerabilities across infrastructure, smart contracts, CI/CD pipelines, and AI agent systems, plus auth/sessions/crypto and validating user input at API and infrastructure boundaries. Triggers on mentions of "vulnerability", "pentest", "OWASP", "access control", "injection", "CSRF", "JWT", "smart contract audit", "supply chain", "OIDC", or any review of security-sensitive code paths spanning more than one layer. For PII sanitization see [security](../security/SKILL.md).
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。
AI-powered conversion rate optimization: landing page audits, CRO scoring, survey segmentation, and lead magnet generation. Use when asked to audit a landing page, run a CRO analysis, segment survey responses, or generate lead magnets. For content quality scoring see content-ops.
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。
Tests in real browsers. Use when building or debugging anything that runs in a browser. Use when you need to inspect the DOM, capture console errors, analyze network requests, profile performance, or verify visual output with real runtime data via Chrome DevTools MCP.
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。
Autonomous growth experimentation framework: creates experiments with hypotheses, logs data points, runs statistical analysis (bootstrap CI + Mann-Whitney U), auto-promotes winners to a living playbook, and suggests next experiments. Use when asked to run growth experiments, analyze A/B tests, build experiment scorecards, or generate pacing alerts. For SEO-specific experiments see seo-ops; for outbound experiments see outbound-engine.
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。
Auto-assembles a domain-specific expert panel (7–10 experts), scores any content or strategy artifact against a typed rubric, and iterates until the aggregate hits 90+ (max 3 rounds). Use as a quality gate on copy, email sequences, landing-page drafts, strategy docs, charts, titles, or recruiting evaluations — or when another skill needs a final review gate on its output. Triggers on "expert panel this", "score this", "rate these variants", "quality check this", "panel review", "expert score", "evaluate this copy/strategy/page". For variant generation and multi-round conversion optimization see autoresearch; for live-URL CRO auditing see conversion-ops; for the scripted content-production pipeline see content-pipeline.
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 or reviewing TypeScript frontend tests — Jest unit/integration tests for React components and hooks built with Chakra UI, React Query, Zustand, and Next.js App Router. Triggers on edits to `*.test.tsx`, React component/hook test files (`.tsx`, not `.ts`) under `**/__tests__/`, custom test render helpers, or mentions of "frontend test", "component test", "hook test", "React test", "UI test".
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 or reviewing TypeScript backend tests — Jest unit tests for services/controllers (mocked Prisma) or Supertest integration tests against a real isolated PostgreSQL test database. Triggers on edits to `*.service.test.ts`, `*.controller.test.ts`, `*.integration.test.ts`, service/controller/API test files (`.ts`, not `.tsx`) under `**/__tests__/`, or mentions of "backend test", "service test", "API test", "database test".
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 reviewing or auditing a library of Claude Code skills, agents, slash commands, and workflows — frontmatter correctness, routing quality, tool allowlists, command arg-hints, workflow meta/phase coherence, cross-reference coherence, single-responsibility, file structure, and anti-pattern detection. Triggers on mentions of "review skills", "audit agents", "skill library", "agent definition review", "review this command", "review this workflow", "is this skill right", or when iterating on `.claude/skills/`, `.claude/agents/`, `.claude/commands/`, or `.claude/workflows/` directories. For code review of source code see code-review-and-quality.
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。
Scan and redact PII and sensitive data (emails, phone numbers, SSNs, API keys, IP addresses, credentials, amounts, company/person names) from repository files. Includes a pre-commit hook to block commits containing PII. Use when asked to audit code for sensitive data, sanitize files before publishing, or install PII detection hooks. For application security hardening see security-engineering.
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。