2,668 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Conduct deep, multi-source research by cross-referencing data from web search, news, social media, academic sources, and proprietary databases. Enforces APA 7th citations, evidence hierarchy, and 2-cycle verification per research theme. Built for competitive intelligence analyst workflows.
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 context files (CLAUDE.md, .claude/ tree, READMEs, docs) for broken references and verifiably stale content. Runs a deterministic offline link/path checker first, then a bounded semantic review where every finding must cite evidence. Reports findings; fixes only on request. Use when the user says "docs check", "/docs-checker", "check the docs for stale content", "audit CLAUDE.md", or when a scheduled cloud routine fires.
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。
Human verification for AI agents. Submit claims, draft responses, or observation requests to human domain experts via the 2O API. Returns structured verdicts with confidence scores and evidence.
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。
Public-records OSINT investigation framework — SEC EDGAR filings, USAspending contracts, Senate lobbying, OFAC sanctions, ICIJ offshore leaks, NYC property records (ACRIS), OpenCorporates registries, CourtListener court records, Wayback Machine archives, Wikipedia + Wikidata, GDELT news monitoring. Entity resolution across sources, cross-link analysis, timing correlation, evidence chains. Python stdlib only.
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。
Evaluate an interface from a UX perspective, assessing hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with evidence-linked judgments and actionable feedback. Use when the user wants an overall design or UX review—not when the main need is measurable accessibility/performance diagnosis, or final micro-detail polish.
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。
Fact-check an implementation plan against the real codebase and first-party documentation, flagging inaccuracies with what / why / evidence and a severity tier. Use when the user wants a plan reviewed or validated for accuracy, runs /review-plan, or wants a plan checked against real code before implementing. Accepts a Beads issue, a filesystem path, or a plan pasted into chat.
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。
Responds to security incidents in cloud environments (AWS, Azure, GCP) by performing identity-based containment, cloud-native log analysis, resource isolation, and forensic evidence acquisition adapted for ephemeral cloud infrastructure. Activates for requests involving cloud incident response, AWS security incident, Azure compromise, GCP breach, cloud forensics, or cloud identity compromise.
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。
Parse Windows Prefetch files to determine program execution history including run counts, timestamps, and referenced files for forensic 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。
Parse Windows LNK shortcut files to extract target paths, timestamps, volume information, and machine identifiers for forensic timeline reconstruction.
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。
Examine Linux system artifacts including auth logs, cron jobs, shell history, and system configuration to uncover evidence of compromise or unauthorized activity.
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 Microsoft Outlook PST and OST files for email forensic evidence including message content, headers, attachments, deleted items, and metadata using libpff, pst-utils, and forensic email analysis tools for legal investigations and incident response.
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 Windows LNK shortcut files and Jump List artifacts to establish evidence of file access, program execution, and user activity using LECmd, JLECmd, and manual binary parsing of the Shell Link Binary format.
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。
Investigate compromised Docker containers by analyzing images, layers, volumes, logs, and runtime artifacts to identify malicious activity and evidence.
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。
Investigate and triage runtime incidents involving the Adobe Dispatcher Apache HTTP Server module and related HTTPD configuration in AEM as a Cloud Service environments only, using runtime-backed MCP evidence.
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。
Silent failure hunting routing. Use when a change might pass while skipping work, swallowing errors, losing evidence, weakening gates, or reporting false success; do not use for broad code 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。
Run a bounded red-green-refactor feedback loop only when the user explicitly requests TDD, accepts reproduction-first proof for a bug, or an accepted high-risk behavior specifically requires red/green evidence; do not trigger for every logic, bug, behavior, or implementation 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。
Optimize a measured performance problem when the user names a latency/load/Core Web Vitals/resource target or current profiling evidence identifies a bottleneck; do not trigger from generic implementation, review, or an unsupported suspicion that code may be slow.
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。
Optional focused post-implementation review routing. Use only when the user requests review or the changed surface has a clear specialist evidence need that direct diff inspection and the smallest relevant check cannot cover. Never creates an automatic review swarm.
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。
Route an explicitly requested independent/delegated browser QA assignment or durable E2E evidence need; do not trigger for direct Playwright/DOM/console/network inspection, ordinary UI implementation, backend-only work, or production-mutating flows.
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。
Perform direct, bounded browser inspection through the `browser.qa` capability when the user requests runtime UI evidence or one browser-specific claim needs DOM/accessibility/console/network/visual verification; do not trigger for every UI change, backend work, delegated QA, or durable E2E artifact routing.
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 one bounded evidence-grounded code review when the user explicitly requests review or ROSE names a concrete unresolved correctness/quality risk; do not trigger automatically after implementation, before every merge, for every bug fix/refactor, or as a completion gate.
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。
Code-review quality gate and test-enhancement rubric. Use when ROSE needs sharper review output contracts, severity and risk prioritization, evidence anchors, negative review cases, fixture or golden-output drift guidance, or a Chinese review report profile; do not use as a duplicate code-review agent or final PASS authority.
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。
Run a non-destructive open-source, npm, or public release readiness checklist covering package metadata, provenance, license, internal artifact exposure, and dry-run evidence; complements security, shipping, and sanitizer reviews, and must not publish, delete, rewrite history, or mutate release state.
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。
Creates response procedures for security incidents with containment steps, communication templates, and evidence collection. Use for "incident response", "security playbook", "breach response", or "IR plan".
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。