742건 · 관련도순
Design a diagnostic hinge question that reveals whether students understand enough to move on. Use when planning key checkpoints mid-lesson during explicit or direct instruction.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design formative assessments that make students' historical thinking visible — revealing whether they source, close-read, contextualise, and corroborate. Use when assessing historical thinking skills or planning a diagnostic.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Routes between five assessment pathways — formative, rubric/criteria, authentic/performance, peer/self, and diagnostic — with validity and equity checks. Use when a teacher needs help choosing how to assess.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Build a learning progression showing prerequisite-to-mastery steps for a target skill or understanding. Use when sequencing content, designing diagnostics, or mapping prerequisite gaps.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use dotnet-diagnostics-mcp for MCP-driven .NET CPU, allocation, GC, and test-host profiling. USE FOR: profiling unit tests or investigating runtime bottlenecks. DO NOT USE FOR: writing test assertions, coverage collection, or precise microbenchmark timing. INVOKES: connect the MCP server, select target processes, collect bounded profiles, and attribute hotspots to source.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Establish MSBuild/.NET build performance baselines before optimizing. USE FOR: unranked slow builds; cold, warm, incremental or no-op measurements; before/after comparisons; CI output caching; static graph, artifacts output and dependency graph trimming. Start here before build-perf-diagnostics, incremental-build or build-parallelism. DO NOT USE FOR: known repeated-restore fixes (use eliminate-redundant-restores), non-MSBuild builds. For measured target/task/analyzer bottlenecks, use build-perf-diagnostics.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Guide developers through capturing diagnostic artifacts to diagnose production .NET performance issues. Use when the user needs help choosing diagnostic tools, collecting performance data, or understanding tool trade-offs across different environments (Windows/Linux, .NET Framework/modern .NET, container/non-container).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Generate MSBuild binary logs (binlogs) for build diagnostics and analysis. USE FOR: adding /bl:{} to any dotnet build, test, pack, publish, or restore command to capture a full build execution trace, prerequisite for binlog-failure-analysis and build-perf-diagnostics skills, enabling post-build investigation of errors or performance. Requires MSBuild 17.8+ / .NET 8 SDK+ for {} placeholder; PowerShell must quote the complete switch as '-bl:{}'. DO NOT USE FOR: non-MSBuild build systems (npm, Maven, CMake), analyzing an existing binlog (use binlog-failure-analysis instead).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
This skill should be used when performing maintenance or diagnostics on remote Linux systems. Triggers on "remote server", "Linux maintenance", "Ubuntu cleanup", "Debian", "disk space", "apt cleanup", "journal vacuum", "snap cleanup", "system diagnostics". Provides structured three-phase checklists with quantification.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Run and interpret repo diagnostic scripts (ratchets, validators, token stats). Use when measuring health. Do not use to run tests; use night-market-operations.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Diagnose excessive Codex local SQLite diagnostic log writes with read-only evidence by default. Use when a user mentions logs_2.sqlite, logs_2.sqlite-wal, block_log_inserts, SSD/TBW wear, or explicitly asks to protect, clean up, verify, or restore Codex diagnostic logging.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Triage TestFlight crashes, beta feedback, and performance diagnostics using asc. Use when the user asks about TF crashes, TestFlight crash reports, beta tester feedback, app hangs, disk writes, launch diagnostics, or wants a crash summary for a build or app.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Triage a GitHub issue using diagnostics archives and logs. Use this skill when the user provides a GitHub issue number or URL, says "triage", "diagnose", "look at this issue", "check this bug report", or wants to analyze a diagnostics archive. Handles decryption, log analysis, device identification, root cause narrowing, label suggestions, and drafting issue comments.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
GitHub 解封 — 账号封禁/限制/恢复的领域操作系统。覆盖：(a) GitHub 官方政策体系 (TOS / 可接受使用政策 / Trust & Safety 执行模式 / 公开申诉路径 / 受制裁地区解读)；(b) 封号原因诊断学 (spam / abuse / 制裁误标 / 2FA 丢失 / ToS 违规 / 账号劫持误判 / ban evasion 等子类型 + 症状→原因映射 + 自我分诊压测)；(c) 申诉实操 craft (写一封能让 T&S 快速判误伤的英文申诉信 + 升级阶梯 + 法务介入边界 + Don'ts)；(d) 制裁与合规硬边界 (OFAC SDN 名单 / 哪些国家或地区真不可达 / VPN 误判路径 / 中国大陆不是美国制裁地区的反复重申)；(e) 中国大陆开发者特别处境 (sanctioned region 误标 + SMS 验证不支持 +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab 备用迁移 + 私有自托管 Gitea/Forgejo)；(f) 真实案例库 (~30+ 公开案例分类拆解：误伤 / 真违规 / 制裁误标三类各自赔率与申诉成功路径)。伦理锚绝不软化：不教 ban evasion / 不教撒谎式申诉 / 真违规承认改进 / 丢 2FA 无恢复因子则诚实告知 / 中国制裁误标靠申诉不靠换 VPN / 申诉 6 个月窗口必算清 / 约 3% (业内估) 真违规恢复 vs 约 79% (业内估) 误伤申诉成功率分层标。 (GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: false-positive / genuine violation / sanctions mis-flag, each with win-rate and appeal success path). Ethical anchors absolutely not softened: do NOT teach ban evasion (creating new accounts turns a temp ban into a permanent one — the single biggest mistake); do NOT teach social engineering or lying in appeals (misuse + actually confirms violation); genuine violations: admit + improve beats denial; lost 2FA + no recovery factor → do not pretend recovery is possible; China sanctioned-region mis-flag → fix via appeal, not repeated VPN switching; appeal form 6-month window must be counted carefully; historical 约 3% (业内估) genuine-violation recovery vs 约 79% (业内估) false-positive appeal success rate stratification must be honestly labeled. Anti-samples (explicitly describe harm, never endorse): developer permabanned for ban evasion / open-source team org-banned for personal attacks in public issues / cases where repeated VPN switching escalated risk-control severity.) Master OS — automated mastery of GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: fa
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Designs or reviews logs, metrics, traces, alerts, correlation, dashboards, and diagnostic instrumentation so failures and performance changes can be detected and explained at component boundaries. Use for observability work, incident readiness, instrumentation, or production diagnostics. Not for fixing a specific incident before reproducing it or for adding noisy logging without an operational question.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design formative assessments that make students' historical thinking visible — revealing whether they source, close-read, contextualise, and corroborate. Use when assessing historical thinking skills or planning a diagnostic.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Build a learning progression showing prerequisite-to-mastery steps for a target skill or understanding. Use when sequencing content, designing diagnostics, or mapping prerequisite gaps.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design a diagnostic hinge question that reveals whether students understand enough to move on. Use when planning key checkpoints mid-lesson during explicit or direct instruction.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Routes between five assessment pathways — formative, rubric/criteria, authentic/performance, peer/self, and diagnostic — with validity and equity checks. Use when a teacher needs help choosing how to assess.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use this when reviewing statistical analysis, experiments, model evaluation, or ML work done by someone else (a notebook, PR, or report) — checking that the required context is stated and that every method applied comes with the figures and values required by the matching *-diagnostics skill. When running an analysis yourself, apply the matching *-diagnostics skill directly.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Conservative review of end-user legal exposure from diagnostics targets and probe hosts, by jurisdiction. Use when shipping or editing diagnostics target lists, probe hosts, or bootstrap endpoints.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Orchestrator context window discipline enforcement. Prevents the orchestrator from reading source files it will not edit, running diagnostic commands that waste context, and rationalizing delegation bypasses. Use when setting up orchestrator guardrails, reviewing delegation discipline, or diagnosing context window waste in multi-agent workflows. Activates PreToolUse hooks that surface decision points before source file reads and diagnostic command execution.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Runs Ansible diagnostic playbooks using ansible-runner and the Ansible Collections ecosystem (ansible.builtin, community.general). Captures system health, service status, and log analysis across inventory hosts.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Compiler-level code intelligence via native LSP — definitions, references, types, call hierarchies, and diagnostics.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.