'architecture analysis' 검색 결과

Produce a structured codebase analysis report with architecture overview, critical files, patterns, and actionable recommendations.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Automated brownfield codebase analysis with weighted keyword scoring, three-stream analysis, and design pattern recognition. Detects project type, frameworks, dependencies, architecture patterns, and generates comprehensive project profile.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Stress-test a design decision with premortem/backcast analysis, then produce a risk-calibrated recommendation that maps to ADR fields. Use when: (1) Multiple competing architecture options, (2) Irreversible or high-risk design choices, (3) /discuss identifies a complex trade-off

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyze codebases using a graph database instead of reading source files. Use when understanding code architecture, finding functions or call patterns, tracing data flow, checking dependencies, or answering "where is X used?" questions. Grafema builds a queryable code graph from static analysis — prefer querying the graph over reading files manually.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Super Base Context — project doc loader & synchronizer. Triggers even without explicit "load docs"/"sync docs." READ MODE — load architecture/modules/coding/decision docs when work references project state: code work (write/modify/remove); design (features/APIs/schemas/architecture); review (modules, past solutions); tech selection; ADR research; migration/refactor planning; performance/security analysis; tests; code reviews; any spec/plan/design/ADR referencing project. WRITE MODE — NET DELTA vs. last doc sync: additions/modifications/REMOVALS/deprecations of previously-synced code or decisions (docs revert: delete BCU file/ADR), AND rollbacks. User signals: sync docs/done/ready to commit/pre-commit/record decision. Auto-fires before final task-completion reply. WRITE MODE does NOT fire on: brainstorming, generic/read-only Q&A, in-session try-and-undo with no net change, already-synced.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generate architecture diagrams as .excalidraw files from codebase analysis. Use when the user asks to create architecture diagrams, system diagrams, visualize codebase structure, or generate excalidraw files.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Strategic SEO planning for new or existing websites. Industry-specific templates, competitive analysis, content strategy, and implementation roadmap. Use when user says "SEO plan", "SEO strategy", "content strategy", "site architecture", "SEO roadmap", "keyword strategy", "content calendar", "site architecture plan", "SEO budget", or "SEO timeline".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Fingerprints unknown binaries using rabin2 — detects architecture (ARM, x86, MIPS), ABI, libc, dependencies, and strings of interest. Use when first encountering an unknown binary, ELF file, or firmware blob, or when you need architecture or ABI information before committing to deeper analysis.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when scoring a list of business or solution requirements against the *actual* capabilities of a specific Salesforce org so each row can be classified Standard / Configuration / Low-Code / Custom / Unfit, given an effort tier (S/M/L/XL), a risk tag, and an AppExchange suggestion when applicable. Trigger keywords: fit gap salesforce requirements, score requirements against salesforce capabilities, salesforce capability matrix, classify requirement as standard config custom, fit-gap effort tier, AppExchange alternative for requirement. NOT for requirements elicitation (use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf). NOT for architecture decisions on the GAP rows (use architect/solution-design-patterns and standards/decision-trees/). NOT for license or edition selection (use architect/license-optimization-strategy and architect/org-edition-and-feature-licensing). NOT for OmniStudio-specific fit-gap (use architect/omnistudio-vs-standard-decision).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Enter explore mode for technical work — a thinking partner for {{engine_name}} code, architecture, and implementation decisions before you write any code. Use it to investigate a technical solution, design the architecture of a feature, choose between frameworks or libraries, compare implementation approaches, analyze how existing code or a system works, or deeply root-cause a complex bug without fixing it yet. The ultra mode adds adaptive artifacts (a C4 view, ADRs, a dependency graph) to the research folder — run it on "ultra research", "ultra explore" or "ultraresearch"; otherwise run the default. Trigger on "let's explore this technical solution", "how should we architect this feature", "which framework should we use", "run an ultra research on the save system", "investigate this error deeply". Research and analysis only — it never writes code. This is the CODE / engineering explorer — for GAME-DESIGN, GDD, mechanics, or balance research (no code) use /unikit-gd-explore.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Establish, author, restructure, or audit human-first processor Architecture, Design, Research, Review, and Verification documentation. Use for progressive documentation scaffolding, authority maps, reading paths, document-type content contracts, length-budgeted splitting, or maintainability reviews. Do not use as a substitute for cycle-accurate microarchitecture analysis or RTL implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Perform comprehensive technical reviews of Ruby on Rails applications. Runs automated analysis tools (RubyCritic, Brakeman, bundler-audit, Gitleaks, Debride, linters, SimpleCov, Rails stats, Rails ERD), analyzes code for architecture, security, authorization (Pundit/CanCanCan), dead code, and design issues, and produces a structured markdown report with prioritized findings and a 0-10 score. Use when the user requests a tech review, code audit, project assessment, or quality analysis of a Rails application.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyzes single-cell pooled CRISPR screens (Perturb-seq, CROP-seq, Perturb-CITE-seq, ECCITE-seq, multiome) where each cell carries an sgRNA and a scRNA-seq / surface-protein / chromatin readout. Covers experimental design (direct-capture Perturb-seq Dixit 2016 vs CROP-seq 3'UTR-barcoded Datlinger 2017 vs ECCITE-seq vs Multiome), MOI for sgRNA assignment, escaper-cell filtering (Mixscape, Papalexi 2021), SCEPTRE NB GLM + permutation for low-MOI (Barry 2024 Genome Biol 25:124), the Pertpy framework, factor decomposition, genome-scale Perturb-seq (Replogle 2022 Cell, 2.5M cells), and per-perturbation single-cell DE. Use when running a single-cell CRISPR screen, choosing direct-capture vs CROP-seq architecture, filtering escaper cells, performing single-cell DE, integrating Perturb-seq with pathway analysis, scaling to GW CRISPRi via Replogle protocol, or analyzing multi-omics screens.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reads, validates, and prepares CDISC SDTM and ADaM clinical trial data for analysis. Covers SDTM domain joins (DM, AE, EX, VS, LB, DS), ADaM architecture (ADSL, BDS, OCCDS, ADTTE) with traceability, treatment-emergent AE conventions, baseline derivation, SUPPQUAL/NSV handling, Define-XML 2.1, and Pinnacle 21 / CORE validation. Use when working with clinical trial datasets in CDISC SDTM/ADaM format, preparing analysis-ready data, or validating for regulatory submission.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Multi-agent collaboration session. Brings 2-4 agent perspectives into one discussion for architecture decisions and trade-off analysis. Use when asked "should we X or Y?", "let's discuss", or "design review".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when answering factual or explanatory questions about the current project — codebase, architecture, conventions, workflows, constraints — with minimal cited evidence. Triggers on "how does X work here", "what does X mean", "why is X structured this way", "is this claim true in the repo", "explain X with sources". NOT for brainstorming or comparing approaches (mk:brainstorming), trade-off decisions (mk:party), debugging/root cause (mk:investigate), code review (mk:review), plans (mk:plan-creator), security audits (mk:cso), visual explanations/diagrams (mk:preview --explain), test-coverage gaps (mk:nyquist), library docs (mk:docs-finder), or workflow navigation (mk:help).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Raw discovery primitives — project discovery, version resolution, docs loading, architecture mapping, execution flow. Called by `universal-project-analysis`. Single-pass scan → `project-analyzer`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds AI-powered trading and financial analysis agents with multi-agent LLM architectures: research pipelines, sentiment signals, portfolio optimization, backtesting, risk guardrails, and market monitoring. Use when designing or implementing an LLM-based trading or market-analysis system.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run convex-doctor static analysis, interpret findings, and fix issues across security, performance, correctness, schema, and architecture categories. Use when running convex-doctor, fixing convex-doctor warnings or errors, improving the convex-doctor score, or when asked about Convex code quality, static analysis, or linting Convex functions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Static analysis checklist for Convex backends covering 72 rules across security, performance, correctness, schema, architecture, configuration, and client-side patterns. Use when writing, reviewing, or auditing Convex code. Trigger on mentions of "convex-doctor", "health score", "static analysis", "anti-patterns", "audit convex", or before shipping backend changes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run convex-doctor static analysis, interpret findings, and fix issues across security, performance, correctness, schema, and architecture categories. Use when running convex-doctor, fixing convex-doctor warnings or errors, improving the convex-doctor score, or when asked about Convex code quality, static analysis, or linting Convex functions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.