「ept」の検索結果

Kontokonzept für den budgetierten Einsatz teurer oder knapper Modelle (Advisor, Reviewer, Spezialmodelle, Dauer-Worker) in längeren Agentenläufen. Beginnt mit einer gemeinsamen Aushandlung zwischen Nutzer und Modell über verfügbare Modelle, Rollen und Kontingente je Zeitfenster, führt ein Konto über jeden Einsatz, setzt vor jeder Eskalation ein Puzzleteil-Vorverfahren und erlaubt Anpassungen mitten im Lauf. Verwenden bei "Budget", "Kontingent", "Konto führen", "nur einmal pro Stunde", "Reviewer sparsam einsetzen", "Fable/Codex/Sol/Astra/Luna/Advisor nur begrenzt", "/budgetierung", und immer dann, wenn ein Operator-, Forschungs- oder Automationslauf mehrere Modelle mit unterschiedlichen Kosten kombinieren soll — auch wenn der Nutzer das Wort Budget nicht nennt, aber Einsatzgrenzen für Modelle vorgibt.

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 the user starts a non-trivial coding/building task in Claude Code (e.g. "帮我做个 X", "help me build Y", "add feature Z", "搭一个 Z"). Layers an AI-native pedagogical coat over normal coding work — surfaces implicit assumptions in user intent, annotates non-trivial design decisions inline with brief concept-scaffolding for terms the user may not know, and replaces "should I run it?" handoffs with rigorous AI self-verification plus a clean list of what only the user can verify. Skip for pure Q&A, single-line edits, read-only investigation, or refactoring along an existing pattern.

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。

Analyze code for primitive obsession and plan value object extractions around domain concepts, validation, and grouped primitive fields. Use when the user says `/value-objects`, asks for value object refactoring, or runs `/refactor:value-objects`.

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。

Refactor code by renaming variables, methods, classes, and concepts for clearer intent. Use when asked to improve names, clarify naming, perform a naming pass, or run `/refactor:names`.

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。

Post-launch review of a shipped PRD against the brief's success metrics. Did we move the metric? What did the data actually show? Which assumptions held, which broke? Which accepted-gap decisions resolved (confirmed vs. invalidated)? What would we do differently? Triggers on "outcome review", "did it work", "post-launch review", "did we move the metric", "retro the feature", "was it worth it". Produces a Confluence outcome-review page and updates the brief + linked decisions.

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。

Break an application or feature into thin vertical user-story slices with clear acceptance criteria and user-observable value. Use when planning a backlog, decomposing a feature, writing implementation-ready stories, or turning requirements into deliverable slices.

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。

Teach the user a new skill or concept, within this workspace.

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。

Analyze a local codebase and infer the architecture it is actually using, including repo kind, best-fit dominant architecture, directly evidenced coexisting patterns, major subsystem exceptions, confidence, docs-vs-code drift, and repo-fit hints for downstream agents. Use when prompts ask what architecture a repo uses, whether it is really hexagonal or just layered, what subtle patterns shape a repo or slice, how a target slice fits a hybrid monorepo, whether documented architecture matches implementation, or when `/tw-tk` needs a repo-dialect preflight before making a minimal change.

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。

Conduct a Marty-Cagan-style opportunity assessment interview and produce a ~2-page Opportunity Brief in Confluence. Covers business objective, customer, problem, success metric, current alternatives, assumptions/risks, and what we don't know yet. Triggers on "opportunity brief", "opportunity assessment", "discovery brief", "who is this for", "why are we building this", "validate this idea", "product discovery", or any request to frame a feature before implementation. One question at a time. Records accepted research gaps as structured Confluence Decision pages with bidirectional links.

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。

Acceptance-test newly added features using browser automation, happy-path flows, screenshots, UX notes, and a written report. Use when asked to test a feature, verify a recent UI change, or check whether an app workflow works.

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。

Review whether a Clawix UI pattern, visual decision, copy change, or component extraction belongs in canon, debt, exception, or protected-surface scope.

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 code, docs, tests, and registries against the Constitution, ADRs, and decision map without making broad repairs. Use when checking whether the repository is drifting away from accepted architecture.

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。

Load when diagnosing a bug, exception, regression, wrong result, failing flow, or unknown root cause in repository code using callers/callees, execution flows, recent changes, and impact analysis; not for implementing a known fix without investigation.

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。

Load for .NET observability changes involving structured logs/Loki, Prometheus metrics, OpenTelemetry traces, exception handling, correlation IDs, dashboards, alerts, or production error diagnosis; not for ordinary business validation errors.

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。

Framework-agnostic core concepts for TanStack Router: route trees, createRouter, createRoute, createRootRoute, createRootRouteWithContext, addChildren, Register type declaration, route matching, route sorting, file naming conventions. Entry point for all router skills.

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。

Define one thin vertical slice with target behavior, risks, and acceptance criteria. Use when scoping the next piece of work before building, or when a slice from `memory/PLAN.md` needs precise definition.

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。

Récupérer les preuves d'un courrier envoyé via l'API Merci Facteur avec getProof — preuve de dépôt, avis de réception signé, preuve de téléchargement d'un recommandé électronique. Utiliser quand il s'agit de récupérer, télécharger, archiver ou afficher un AR, une preuve de dépôt ou un justificatif d'envoi, ou de savoir si un recommandé a été distribué.

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。

Envoyer un vrai courrier papier — lettre PDF, carte illustrée (carte postale, carte pliée, carte carrée, carte géante), suivi, recommandé avec accusé de réception, recommandé électronique eIDAS — depuis une application, via l'API Merci Facteur. Utiliser dès qu'il s'agit d'envoyer, poster, imprimer ou expédier du courrier physique depuis du code, d'envoyer une carte depuis une application, de brancher un envoi postal sur un événement, un formulaire, un cron ou un webhook, ou de déboguer un appel sendCourrier. Couvre le contrat exact, les pièges de nommage qui font échouer l'appel, l'idempotence et le comportement en cas d'échec.

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。

Create a study cheatsheet by extracting and synthesizing key concepts from lecture materials, homework, and past exams. Use this skill whenever a user asks for help making a cheatsheet, study sheet, formula sheet, exam reference sheet, or "one-pager" — especially when they upload lecture slides (PDF/PPTX/DOCX), problem sets, past exams, or scanned/handwritten notes. Trigger this even for casual phrasings like "help me prep for my final," "summarize my course materials into something I can bring to the exam," or "make me a study reference from these slides and homeworks." Tuned for math/science (formulas, proofs, theorems) and CS/engineering (code, algorithms). Processes one file at a time and persists intermediate summaries to disk to avoid blowing past the context window on large courses.

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 NIST Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems (SP 1500-201/202/203, v1.0, 2017). Use for engineering and analyzing cyber-physical systems (CPS) and IoT: the CPS Framework's aspect × facet grid (nine aspects of concern examined through conceptualization, realization, and assurance facets), cross-property trustworthiness risk management (safety/security/privacy/reliability/resilience together), data interoperability (syntactical/semantic/contextual, canonical models, identifiers, provenance), the timing aspect (time-interval classes, time domains, time-aware networking) and secure/resilient time (GNSS jamming/spoofing, PTP/NTP attacks, holdover, the clock-error model and Allan/MTIE metrics), plus the use-case requirements method. Bridges IT and OT under a clock. Scope limits: a 2017 living/draft document, thin on post-2017 standards and on detailed control catalogs; it names but does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 and 15288 process text or permission-licensed third-party figures.

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 NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods (NIST HB 151) — the practical statistics reference for engineering, metrology, and quality. Use for: exploratory data analysis and the four univariate assumptions (4-plot); measurement process characterization including bias/precision, calibration designs, gauge R&R, and ISO/GUM uncertainty budgets; production process characterization (stability vs. capability); process modeling and regression (LS/WLS/NLS/LOESS); design of experiments (screening, fractional/factorial, response-surface, Taguchi); statistical process control (Shewhart/CUSUM/EWMA charts, capability indices, acceptance sampling); product/process comparisons (hypothesis tests and confidence intervals for 1/2/3+ groups, ANOVA, multiple comparisons); and reliability (lifetime & repair-rate models, accelerated testing, reliability growth). Scope limits: this is applied frequentist statistics for measurement and quality — it does NOT reproduce the per-distribution formula galleries, worked case studies, datasets, plot images, or Dataplot/R code of the original web Handbook (those are described, not copied); it is thin on modern machine learning, Bayesian methods beyond conjugate reliability priors, time-series/forecasting, and Bayesian experimental design.

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 NASA-STD-8719.14C (Process for Limiting Orbital Debris). Use for orbital-debris assessment planning, mission-related debris limits, explosion/passivation and collision risk, postmission disposal options, reentry casualty risk, and ODAR/EOMP governance. Covers STD-8719.14C (Approved 2021-11-05) synthesized notes only; does not replace NPR 8715.6 delivery timing, NASA-HDBK-8719.14 environment/modeling depth, or program-specific OSMA waivers.

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 NIST SP 800-160 Vol 1 (Engineering Trustworthy Secure Systems) and Vol 2 (Developing Cyber-Resilient Systems). Use for systems security engineering (SSE): the three SSE framework contexts (problem/solution/trustworthiness), the 30+ design principles for trustworthy secure design, trustworthiness and assurance/assurance cases, security across the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 life-cycle process groups, and the Vol 2 cyber-resiliency engineering framework — 4 goals (anticipate/withstand/recover/adapt), objectives, 14 techniques, implementation approaches, and design principles for the APT/adverse-conditions threat model. Bridges systems engineering and the NIST security cluster (CSF/SSDF/RMF). Does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text, nor cover SP 800-53 control catalogs in depth.

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 NASA System Safety Handbook Volume 2 (NASA/SP-2014-612). Use for risk-informed safety cases (RISC), integrated safety analysis (ISA), adequate safety concepts, safety objectives and requirements, acquirer/provider roles, graded safety analysis, claims-evidence-argument structure, SSMP development, and RISC evaluation. Does not cover nuclear or chemical safety domains, occupational health regulations, or NASA-specific programmatic requirements beyond system safety.

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。