2,941 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Sync, validate, and apply App Store metadata with the current asc canonical metadata workflow. Use when updating metadata, localizations, keywords, or migrating legacy fastlane metadata.
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。
Integrating TanStack Router with TanStack Query: queryClient in router context, ensureQueryData/prefetchQuery in loaders, useSuspenseQuery in components, defaultPreloadStaleTime: 0, setupRouterSsrQueryIntegration for SSR dehydration/hydration and streaming, per-request QueryClient isolation.
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。
Knowledge base from the NASA Systems Modeling Handbook for Systems Engineering (NASA-HDBK-1009A Rev A, 2025). Use for model-based systems engineering (MBSE) wired into NASA's NPR 7123.1 SE processes: the three aspects of MBSE (language / methodology / framework), the NASA SE Engine and its two OOSEM-derived steps (Model Planning, Setting Up the Model), the Modeling Plan as a SEMP subset, the tool-agnostic NASA SE metamodel of elements and relationships across the four SysML pillars (structure / behavior / requirements / parametrics), worked SysML diagrams and tables for stakeholders, requirements, structure and V&V, generating SE work products (ConOps, MOE, MOP, TPM, V&V), the MBSE Grid framework, alternative modeling approaches (PBR, Scenario, System Specification, Verification), and the ConOps model-content template. Scope is bounded to four common technical processes (Stakeholder Expectation Definition, Technical Requirements Definition, Product Verification, Product Validation). Does NOT teach SysML itself, mandate a tool, define NPR 7123.1 processes, cover technical-management processes 10-17, or reproduce the OMG SysML specification.
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。
Knowledge base from MIL-HDBK-338B (Electronic Reliability Design Handbook). Use for electronic reliability engineering: R/M/A theory, reliability specification/allocation/prediction, parts management and derating, reliable circuit and fault-tolerant design, environmental and human performance reliability, FMEA/FMECA/FTA/sneak circuit analysis, design reviews and testability, FRACAS, reliability demonstration and growth testing, and systems-level R&M parameters. Covers selected Part 2 design-guidance topics only; skips large annex/part-stress tables. Guidance handbook — not a contractual requirement text. Does not replace MIL-HDBK-217 prediction libraries, service-specific reliability regs, or safety standards (see mil-std-882).
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。
Operating Rojo — the filesystem-to-Roblox-Studio sync tool for professional Roblox development in VS Code / Claude Code instead of the Studio editor. Use this skill whenever Rojo is involved: `rojo serve`/`rojo build`, writing or debugging `default.project.json`, rokit/rokit.toml and tool versions (Rojo, Lune, Wally), nested vs. flat path mapping (ReplicatedStorage.Project.shared), connect/port/sync problems, or when a Roblox project skeleton needs to be created. Also trigger on "rojo connect not working", "scripts end up in the wrong place in Studio", "how do I map src/ to Studio", "port 34872 in use", "ModuleScript vs Script in Rojo".
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。
Operating Roblox Studio for game development — the visual editor in which the 3D scene is built, tested, and published. Use this skill for: Studio basics (Explorer, Workspace, play-test, saving the place as .rbxl), the interplay with Rojo (Connect, scene-vs-code mode), AI control of Studio via the Roblox-Studio-MCP (execute_luau, insert_from_creator_store, generate_material, screen_capture, Play/Stop, reading the Console), the complete asset-pipeline workflow (Creator Store → clean up → kit → scene → .rbxl → Rojo brings it to life), and above all the MANDATORY malware scan for marketplace assets. Also trigger on "embed an asset from the Store", "Studio MCP not working", "studios: []", "generate material", "save scene", "is this Roblox asset safe", "scripts disappear after Play".
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 stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, use project-status-tracker. 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 policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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。
Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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。
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。
Drafts one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a 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 a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, 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。
Builds and maintains a DRAFT impact log from notes, messages, status updates and completed work: one row per outcome with its evidence and evidence level, date, who benefited and the source it traces to, plus a gap list of outcomes that still lack evidence, structured so a later review, appraisal or promotion case can draw on it. Use when the user asks to "start an impact log", "add this to my impact log", "log what I achieved this quarter", "pull my wins out of these notes", "turn these messages into evidence for my review" or "what do I have evidence for so far". Do not use for a performance rating, ranking, pay or promotion decision, the skill records evidence and never judges it; for the review narrative itself, use performance-review-drafter; for a role profile built from the work, use job-description-drafter 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 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。
Synthesises a batch of customer feedback (survey answers, reviews, ticket and chat comments) into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim quotes cited to record codes, contradictions and unverified claims, and the follow-up questions to answer next. Produces no sentiment score or percentage positive as fact; ratings appear only as distributions with n. Use when the user asks to "theme this feedback", "what are customers saying", "summarise these survey answers", "analyse these reviews", "find the top complaints in these comments" or "code this voice of the customer data". Do not use for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis instead; for sorting a live queue and drafting replies, use ticket-triage-pack; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-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。
Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. 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。
Reads a project or processing description and returns a DRAFT data protection impact assessment pack: processing description, necessity and proportionality questions, a risk table with blank rating cells, mitigations to consider and open questions. Never rates risk, determines the lawful basis or judges adequacy; the DPO assesses and signs. Works from descriptions, never personal data. Use when the user asks to "start a DPIA for the new monitoring tool", "draft a data protection impact assessment", "scaffold a DPIA from this processing description" or "what would the DPO need for a DPIA on this". Do not use for redacting or de-identifying a document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief 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。
Use when generating, modifying, explaining, or reviewing TBQ3 Bar-based trading strategies with OnBar, OnInit, OnReady, entries, exits, MarketPosition, stop profit/loss, sizing, slippage, commission, multi-symbol, or cross-period logic.
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。
- Mine GitHub, GitLab and git history for identities, infrastructure and leaked credentials using commit author emails, GitHub code search, the commit… Use when investigating a developer or organisation on GitHub, finding leaked API keys, AWS keys or tokens in code, enumerating org members and their personal repos, or recovering secrets deleted from HEAD but still present in history or forks
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。
Operating manual for Telegram over its MCP connector and roughly 115 tools: how to find a chat by title, the tool inventory grouped by job, resolving chat ids, auto-transcribing voice notes, and the connector gotchas (pinned-first ordering, big-page crashes, reload after reconnect, untrusted fields, always passing an explicit account). Load before any non-trivial Telegram work.
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。
- Recover deleted, edited or historical web content using the Wayback Machine and its CDX API, archive.today, Common Crawl… Use when a page is deleted, changed or 404s, checking what a site used to say, finding old team or staff pages, prior pricing, removed posts, pre-redaction wording or old contact details, enumerating every archived URL for a domain, or preserving evidence before it disappears
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。
Operational guide for integrating the NV oOS Complete purchase flow (vendor checkout API client) into standalone WordPress plugins — docs-hub 0.5.3 (stack added in PR #6963, shipped 0.5.2 → 0.5.3) and nvoos-content-graph 1.0.10 (live). Covers the vendor API contract (session/verify/health, nvoos-oos-complete product, 424/502 error passthrough), the five-class client stack (config, vendor client, license store, installer, REST controller), the purchase-modal JS/CSS port recipe (class-prefix rename, keep-the-JS-identical trick), wp.org commerce compliance (External Services disclosure, WPORG-REVIEW-COMMERCE-NOTES.md, js.stripe.com service exception), and the checkout test conventions (direct controller calls, pi_ fixture rules, zero-HTTP assertions). Use when adding the Get NV oOS Complete upsell/checkout to a plugin, porting the commerce stack to a new standalone plugin, extending the purchase flow, or debugging a checkout integration.
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 migrating a CopilotKit v1 application to v2 -- updating package imports, replacing deprecated hooks and components, switching from GraphQL runtime to AG-UI protocol runtime, and resolving breaking API changes.
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。
Programmatically clear WP Rocket cache from a third-party plugin / theme when data changes — the public rocket_clean_* function family (rocket_clean_post, rocket_clean_files, rocket_clean_term, rocket_clean_user, rocket_clean_home, rocket_clean_minify, rocket_clean_cache_busting, rocket_clean_domain, rocket_clean_cache_dir). Critical detection rule — WP Rocket is a PAID plugin not on Packagist; always feature-detect via function_exists('rocket_clean_post') OR defined('WP_ROCKET_VERSION') before calling, since not every site has it. Never raw-unlink the cache directory or call wp_cache_flush() expecting it to clear WP Rocket — wp_cache_flush is WP object cache, WP Rocket is FILE cache. The before_*_clean_* / after_*_clean_* action lifecycle hooks fire around every clean — useful for audit logging, monitoring, custom invalidation chains. Use when integrating cache invalidation in a companion plugin, WC integration, custom data plugin. Triggers on rocket_clean_, before_rocket_clean, af...
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。