리서치·학습 스킬

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Synthesises training survey responses and manager notes into a DRAFT training needs report by role: coded needs with record counts per role (n of N), the evidence type behind each count, anonymised quotes cited to record codes, disagreements between what staff report and what managers observe, gaps where a role is under-represented or a required skill has no evidence, and follow-up questions to settle before any course is designed. Never rates an individual, ranks a team or turns a count into a competence verdict. Use when the user asks to "analyse this training survey", "what training do our teams need", "summarise the manager feedback on skills gaps", "build a training needs analysis by role" or "which roles have the biggest skill gaps". Do not use for turning an agreed need into a course, use course-outline-builder instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, use onboarding-plan-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT quiz from the training content the user supplies (slide deck, manual, e-learning script, session transcript, procedure): numbered questions with the correct answer, distractors drawn from the content itself, an explanation quoting the source passage with its location, a difficulty tag (Recall, Apply, Analyse) with its basis, and a coverage table showing which sections and objectives each question tests and which are left uncovered. Use when the user asks to "build a quiz from this deck", "write knowledge check questions for this module", "create an assessment from this training", "test understanding of this procedure" or "which sections does this quiz cover". Do not use for a reader-facing question and answer page built from documents, use faq-builder instead; for writing the procedure itself from notes or a walkthrough, use sop-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Prepares a DRAFT leadership-meeting briefing pack from the reports, meeting notes, emails and dashboard exports the user provides: one headline, metrics exactly as stated with period and source, decisions the meeting must take, risks as reported, talking points with anticipated questions, a source reference on every line and UNKNOWN where the material is silent. Use when the user asks to "brief the leadership team", "prepare the exec pack", "pull together a briefing for the steering committee", "summarise these reports for the CEO", "what do I tell the board on Monday" or "build the pre-read for the management meeting". Do not use for a formal board or committee paper seeking a resolution, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for a personal one-page prep drawn from the user's own calendar and inbox, use meeting-prep-onepager. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

既存プロダクトへの機能追加の仕様を対話で固め、既存コード・既存仕様との整合を調査して REQ-# 契約付きの docs/dev/<対象>/spec.md を作成・改訂するスキル。/feature-spec <対象名> で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

新しいソフトウェア/デジタルプロダクトのコンセプトを対話で固め、競合・類似プロダクトを並列調査し、軽量な仕様ドラフトを作るオーケストレーションスキル。/product-spec <一言のプロダクトアイデア> で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Quiz the user on a plan, implementation, or codebase to pay down understanding debt left by AI tooling. Explicit invocation only.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Navigate the user through reading code stop by stop to pay down understanding debt left by AI tooling. Explicit invocation only.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Tutor the user step by step on a plan, implementation, codebase, or topic to pay down understanding debt left by AI tooling. Explicit invocation only.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Nix パッケージがバイナリキャッシュから降ってこずローカルビルドになる原因を調査する。

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

- Corporate due-diligence workflow — resolve a brand or website to its registered legal entity, map group structure and beneficial ownership, profile officers and directors, enumerate the digital estate, and screen litigation, insolvency,… Use when asked to check out, vet or research a company, verify a supplier or counterparty before signing or paying, or assess whether a business is real

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

- Entry point for open-source intelligence, investigation and verification work. Use when asked to investigate, research, verify, vet, check out, look up, background-check, trace, attribute or find someone or something; when a request involves due diligence, KYC or KYB, counterparty or vendor risk, sanctions and PEP screening, AML, fraud, business email compromise

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Researches Reddit using a brand's Brand DNA to find promotable pain-point discussions, target subreddits, and real user search language. Produces a prioritized Reddit opportunity list for content seeding, helpful replies, and prompt research inspiration.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn any hypothesis, however fringe, into an argument map rather than a verdict: five independent lenses (consensus, skeptic, frontier, historian, experimental design), then a synthesis of for and against, evidence quality, a confidence tier and the cheapest decisive experiment. Triggers: "/research-swarm <hypothesis>", "map the arguments on X".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Researches a company from its URL and produces a Brand DNA file covering positioning, audience, competitors, voice, and messaging. Use when starting work with a new brand or customer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn a verified correction or repeated workflow into a reusable local learning.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Synthesize repeated themes from selected research conversations or notes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

- Investigator OPSEC — threat-model who might notice you, control your attribution surface across IP, ASN, browser and TLS fingerprint, timing and logged-in accounts, separate research identity from… Use when setting up a research account, avoiding tipping off a subject, worrying about LinkedIn profile-view leakage, needing a burner phone or email, or hardening a research VM or browser profile

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Send one research question to as many independent LLMs as possible at once, each in its strongest reasoning mode with proof of that mode, then synthesize. Floor of 3 models, quorum of 4; late answers are collected later. Use for high-stakes questions where one model's view is not enough. Triggers: /hyper, hyper research, ask every LLM, max fan-out research.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

- Build a sourced, corroborated profile of a named individual from public records, social platforms, professional networks, court and property filings, licensing boards, patents, papers and obituaries — anchoring the name to a… Use when asked to find, identify, background-check or profile a person, verify someone's claimed employment or credentials, or locate a missing or hard-to-reach individual

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.