「structural」の検索結果

Adversarial "perfection" review — hold a change to an *ideal* bar, not just a correct one, assuming eternal time, unlimited energy, and no ship pressure. Use when the user asks to review "for perfection", to make a defect "impossible to express", or to hunt where a defect "relocates" across review rounds. Grounds every claim in the diff, fans out adversarial verifiers via Workflow, and reports residual surfaces with a structural fix for each. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly asks for a perfection / ideal-bar review.

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。

Design the structure of a website or product including sitemap, navigation, URL structure, content types, taxonomy, and labeling. Use this skill whenever the user asks to plan a sitemap, design navigation, structure URLs, define content types, build taxonomies, design site search, or organize content at the system level. Triggers on sitemap, site structure, navigation, IA, information architecture, URL structure, content types, taxonomy, categorization, breadcrumbs, hub pages, faceted navigation, site search, labeling. Also triggers when content is being created without a structural plan, or when an existing site's structure is being audited or restructured.

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。

Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, not legal advice.

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。

Brief statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework. Use when briefing statutes, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory structure, extracting rule-modules from provisions, applying statutes to scenarios, or any statutory analysis task. Triggers include "brief this statute," "analyze this Act," "map the statute," "apply [statute] to [scenario]," "what are the elements of [provision]," "statutory analysis," or references to codified sections (such as 42 U.S.C. sections or Texas Health & Safety Code). Supports two modes - (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies statutory provisions to specific facts.

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。

Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for it.

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。

Audits skills in this repo for consistency, API drift, and structural gaps. Produces a prioritized report grouped by severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low). Use when asked to "audit skills", "check the skill repo for drift", or when planning bulk skill cleanup. Read-only — does not apply fixes.

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 real run evidence, validation failures, source drift, platform drift, and user feedback to plan and, only after explicit approval, apply structural upgrades to an existing skill. Use when the user asks to improve an existing skill from recent runs, recurring failures, outdated sources, excessive bloat, changed platform behavior, or validated workflow feedback. Do not use to create a brand-new skill or to execute the business workflow itself.

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 whether a scene is structurally worth generating before any shot is prompted — a five-element engine of Goal, Obstacle, Tactic, Reversal, and Value Shift. Use when the user has a scene, sequence, beat outline, or script and wants it audited or strengthened; when a sequence generates cleanly but lands flat and nobody can say why; when shots look good individually but the run of them does not build; or when the user asks 'is this scene working', 'what's weak here', or 'why doesn't this land'. Upstream of prompting — it decides WHICH shots deserve the credits, not how to write them. Pairs with higgsfield-character-design (who the characters are) and higgsfield-shotlist-director (turning the settled scene into shots).

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。

Transform ordinary snapshots—including daily moments, portraits, objects, pets, food, interiors, streets, architecture, landscapes, travel, and humanistic scenes—into the restrained Shijing Paper Zine visual style. Use when the user wants any real photo turned into a spacious paper-editorial composition with an irregular photographic fragment, simplified source-derived drawing, one structural print color, tactile torn-paper texture, minimal micro-copy, a consistent multi-image series, or a source-to-poster comparison.

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。

Expert economics paper writing assistant synthesizing advice from 50+ top guides by Cochrane, McCloskey, Shapiro, Head, Bellemare, Goldin, Glaeser, Kremer, and other leading economists. USE THIS SKILL whenever the user writes, edits, reviews, rewrites, or structures any economics paper, thesis, job market paper, abstract, introduction, conclusion, results section, literature review, or referee response. Also handles LaTeX formatting, presentations, and paper audits. Covers all paper types (applied, theory, structural, mixed) and all sections.

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。

Find the papers that answer a research query in Firecrawl's research paper index — a corpus of paper abstracts whose largest share is biomedical and life-science literature (PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv), alongside arXiv preprints in CS, physics, and math — using semantic search, semantic and structural expansion, and in-body verification. Use this skill for literature-finding and paper-retrieval tasks of any kind, including clinical, biomedical, drug, gene, disease, and other life-science questions, whether the answer is a single paper or a full multi-paper set. The index is reached only through the `firecrawl_research_*` MCP tools or the `firecrawl research` CLI subcommands. Calling `firecrawl_search` with its `categories` option set to `["research"]` is a different feature — it filters ordinary web search to research-affiliated websites (the list includes PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and publisher sites) and returns page results from them, without querying the paper records in this index.

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。

Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.

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。

Build and validate .arch/index.json — a committed map from each architectural component of this repository to the real directories and files that implement it, pinned to a git commit, with every path verified to exist. Also detects structural drift between that index and the current code. Use when asked to map a codebase, produce a component or code-ownership index, find which files implement a component, check whether architecture docs are stale, or detect architecture drift after a refactor. Triggers include 'map the codebase', 'component index', 'which files implement X', 'is the architecture still accurate', 'architecture drift', 'refresh the architecture index'.

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。

Explores codebase structure, affected files, blast radius, related tests, and local conventions for a focused topic. Use when review or planning needs structural lookup without bloating main context.

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。

Audit structural debt, logic leakage, and monolithic components across Web, Mobile, and Backend codebases. Use when reviewing architecture, assessing tech debt, detecting logic in wrong layers, or identifying God classes.

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。

Validates album directory structure, file locations, and content integrity. Use before release or whenever the user wants to check an album's structural health.

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 lyrics against a quality checklist before Suno generation. Use before generating tracks to catch rhyme, prosody, pronunciation, and structural issues.

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。

Produces human-sounding text that avoids detectable AI writing patterns. Activates on any writing task — tweets, emails, articles, bios, captions, reports, copy, messages, LinkedIn posts, cover letters, README files, or any content where the output must not read as AI-generated. Enforces banned vocabulary, structural variety, punctuation discipline, accuracy rules, and voice calibration. Use when the user says "write," "draft," "rewrite," "make this sound human," "anti-slop," "not AI," or any variation of wanting authentic-sounding output.

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 the open-source free `QuickDup` clone detector for .NET repositories. Use when a repo needs duplicate C# code discovery, structural clone detection, DRY refactoring candidates, or repeatable duplication. USE FOR: the repo wants QuickDup; the team needs repeatable duplicate-code scans for C#; the user asks about DRY cleanup, copy-paste detection, clone detection, or duplicate. DO NOT USE FOR: formatting-only work; repos that intentionally use a different clone detector and do not want overlap. INVOKES: inspect the repository context, edit targeted files, and run relevant build, test, lint, or validation commands when changes are made.

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。

Author and review GitHub Actions workflow YAML safely so syntactically-valid YAML can't ship a workflow that GitHub Actions refuses to run. USE FOR: editing, adding, or reviewing any file under .github/workflows/, writing run-name/name/if/env/run values that contain ${{ }} expressions, diagnosing a run that fails with 'This run likely failed because of a workflow file issue' and no jobs starting, deciding when a workflow scalar must be quoted, validating workflows with actionlint. DO NOT USE FOR: authoring application YAML unrelated to GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, GitLab CI, or non-workflow YAML. SCOPE: this skill covers *syntactic/structural* correctness of workflow YAML (quoting, parsing, actionlint); for *semantic and functional* workflow design (what a workflow should do, agentic-workflow behavior), see .github/agents/agentic-workflows.agent.md — the two are complementary. INVOKES: actionlint (downloaded pinned binary) plus git/grep for inspection.

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。

Detects duplicate boilerplate, copy-paste tests, and structural maintainability issues across .NET test suites. Use when the user asks to reduce repetition, consolidate similar test methods, convert copy-paste tests to data-driven parameterized tests, suggest a better test structure, or identify refactoring opportunities. Identifies repeated construction, assertion patterns, copy-paste methods convertible to DataRow/Theory/TestCase, redundant setup/teardown, and shared infrastructure. Produces an analysis report with concrete before/after suggestions. Works with MSTest, xUnit, NUnit, and TUnit. DO NOT USE FOR: writing new tests (use writing-mstest-tests), reviewing test quality or anti-patterns (use test-anti-patterns), or deep mock auditing (use exp-mock-usage-analysis).

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。

Traditional market microstructure concepts applied to crypto — order book dynamics, market making theory, price formation models, execution quality measurement, and CEX vs DEX structural differences

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。

Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, architecture rot, and low-value tests. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to "assess technical debt", "find technical debt", "review technical debt", "what should we refactor", "find refactoring candidates", "where is the code rot", "what's our worst code", "find low-value tests", or "which tests can we delete". Analysis-only — does not modify code.

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 invalid data causes failures deep in execution, requiring validation at multiple system layers - validates at every layer data passes through to make bugs structurally impossible

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。