スキルを探す

Reviews a set of knowledge files or a knowledge base listing and returns a draft hygiene table, one row per file: duplication signals with the matching file, staleness signals, conflicts between files on the same topic with both passages quoted, missing or unverified owners, and one proposed action per file (Keep, Update, Merge into, Retire, Assign owner, Confirm with owner) for the owner to decide. Never edits, merges, moves or deletes a file. Use when the user asks to "review our knowledge base for duplicates", "which KB articles are stale", "find conflicting articles", "which articles have no owner" or "run a hygiene check on these files". Do not use for review-date sweeps of a document library with owner reminders, use sharepoint-review-sweeper instead; for writing one article, use knowledge-article-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Turns an engineer's notes, a ticket history or a chat thread into a draft step-by-step runbook with preconditions, stop conditions, numbered steps with checks, verification, rollback and escalation, for the team to validate before use. Commands verbatim, placeholders marked, every gap UNKNOWN; never executes a step or fills a gap from general knowledge. Use when the user asks to "write a runbook from these notes", "turn this resolved ticket into a runbook", "document the steps we ran" or "check this runbook for gaps". Do not use for a business process without commands, use sop-drafter instead; for a knowledge article or known-error record, use knowledge-article-drafter; for the post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Drafts one service catalogue entry (description, scope in and out, owners and support groups, service levels exactly as provided, request path, dependencies, charging, lifecycle) from the service team's notes, questionnaire answers or existing documents, with UNKNOWN and a question list for every field the inputs do not cover. Never invents a service level, owner or price. Use when the user asks to "write the catalogue entry for this service", "turn these questionnaire answers into a service description", "tidy this request catalogue item" or "check this draft entry for empty fields". Do not use for a how-to or known-error article, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for operating procedures, use runbook-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Sweeps a SharePoint library listing (an export or a listing the agent can reach, with file name, link, review-date column and owner column) for documents past their review date and returns a dated DRAFT review sweep report (Overdue, Due soon, No review date, Summary) plus one ready-to-paste reminder per document owner for the user to send. Never changes metadata, sends a message or invents a document, date or owner. Use when the user asks to "find the documents past their review date", "run the review sweep on the policies library", "which documents are overdue for review", "audit the review dates in this library export" or "draft reminders to owners about stale documents". Do not use for duplicate, conflict and ownership checks across knowledge files, use knowledge-base-hygiene-review instead; for gaps in an engineering deliverables register, use master-document-register-check. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 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.

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。

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.

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 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.

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。

Compares one clause (liability, termination, confidentiality or any other) across several contracts, templates or successive versions and returns a DRAFT comparison table: verbatim clause text per document, the clause split into elements with every difference from the baseline highlighted and categorised, and neutral questions for counsel. Never says which wording is better or enforceable. Use when the user asks to "compare the liability caps across these five supplier contracts", "line up the termination clause in these three drafts", "show how the confidentiality clause changed between versions", "contrast this clause with our template" or "benchmark the indemnity wording across our customer agreements". Do not use for a whole-contract review, use contract-review-pack instead; for screening one NDA against standard positions, use nda-triage. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Turns the text of a regulatory change (new regulation, amendment, rule, guidance or standard revision) into a DRAFT impact note: what changed against the prior text where supplied, who is affected as the text scopes it, an obligations table with dates and owners to confirm, and open interpretation questions for legal. States only what the text says; the rest is UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "brief legal on this new regulation", "list what we must do by when under this amendment", "compare the new standard with the version it replaces", "turn this directive into an obligations table" or "what does this rule mean for us". Do not use for assessing existing controls against a requirement set, use controls-gap-pack instead; for gapping a policy against a standard, use policy-gap-review. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Drafts one internal or external announcement (email, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or press statement) in the organisation's voice from the facts, audience, sender and style guide the user provides, with a fact trace, reader-questions check, pre-send checks and an approvals checklist left blank for the named approvers. Use when the user asks to "announce this change to all staff", "draft the customer notice", "write the town hall script", "prepare a holding statement" or "rewrite this in our voice". Do not use for a digest of several items, use internal-newsletter-drafter instead; to pre-test a drafted message against personas, use communication-pretest-panel. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Drafts one anonymised DRAFT case study (situation, approach, outcome as evidenced, optional lessons) from engagement notes, status reports, closing reports, emails and metrics extracts the user supplies, with a fact trace to the notes, an evidence grade on every result, quotes only where the user supplied them with speaker role and permission, an anonymisation log and a confidentiality checklist that must be completed before publication. Use when the user asks to "write a case study from these notes", "turn this engagement into a customer story", "draft a success story for the website", "anonymise this project write-up" or "prepare a reference case for the proposal". Do not use for redacting identifiers from an existing document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; for checking whether a document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

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.

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。

Runs twice in a PFD to P&ID job. Part 1, before gate G3, validates the discipline proposals for provenance, UNKNOWN handling, conflicts, prohibited content and cross-section consistency and returns results and blocking items. Part 2, before gate G5, assembles the review package, with job header, gate record, every register and proposal, consolidated UNKNOWN list, feedback log and closing statement. Use when the user asks to "validate the enrichment", "run validation before G3", "assemble the review package" or "build the G5 package". Do not use for the readiness map, use pid-tool-readiness-mapping instead; do not use to produce a missing discipline section, use the discipline skill that owns it. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Marketing Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, marketing risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CMO review", "pressure-test the positioning", "what would a CMO say about this", "challenge the launch plan" or "check the messaging and audience". Do not use for price economics, margins or payback, use cfo-reviewer instead; for sales pipeline mechanics, use cro-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。