「ept」の検索結果

Grundlagen der Schematherapie nach Jeffrey Young: Schemata, Modi, Inneres-Kind-Konzept und Bewältigungsstile — psychoedukativ vermittelt.

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。

Document requirements analysis: Analyzes concept and requirements documents in the docs/ folder, checks requirements against current code, and creates a consolidated difference report.

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。

Teststrategie-Berater für Softwareprojekte — wählt die richtigen Teststufen (Unit/Integration/System/Abnahme), Testarten (funktional, nicht-funktional, änderungsbezogen) und Testentwurfsverfahren (Äquivalenzklassen, Grenzwerte, Entscheidungstabellen, explorativ) für die jeweilige Situation und SDLC-/CI-Phase, inkl. Testpyramide, CI/CD-Gates, Shift-Left und Best Practices. Nutze diesen Skill IMMER, wenn Tests geschrieben, geplant, priorisiert oder bewertet werden sollen — bei "schreibe Tests", "Teststrategie", "Testplan", "Testkonzept", "was/wie soll ich testen", "welche Tests fehlen", "Testabdeckung verbessern", "QA aufsetzen", Fragen zu Regression/Smoke/Sanity/Last/Stress/Security-Tests oder beim Einrichten einer Test-Pipeline — auch wenn "Test" nur beiläufig fällt. Abgrenzung — für die TDD-Schleife selbst superpowers:test-driven-development, für Bug-Diagnose bugfix-protocol, für systematische Bug-Suche bugsweep nutzen.

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 a DRAFT product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, use change-request-pack. 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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。

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。

Proposes the piping content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: line inventory with off-page continuity and required ancillary lines, line identification elements per the project line numbering procedure, connection items at nozzles matched to a quoted schedule, per quoted standards, specification break questions and observations. Every proposal cites its source and revision; no source, no proposal; never sizes a line or selects a class. Use when the user asks to "run the piping enrichment", "start the discipline enrichment", "list the lines the P&ID adds to this PFD" or "fill the line identifiers from the numbering procedure" after gate G2. Do not use for instruments, loops or instrument tags, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use before gate G2, use process-model-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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-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 rollout plan in character as a Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around the change, use frontline-skeptic-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 product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。

Proposes the instrumentation and control content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: instruments drawn carried over as facts, measurement points and control loops the control philosophy requires, tag structure per the project instrument numbering procedure, system interfaces, and alarms, interlocks, trips and fail actions as quoted. Never assigns safety functions, ranges or setpoints. Use when the user asks to "run the instrumentation and control enrichment", "add the instrument section to the P&ID draft", "list the control loops the philosophy requires" or "carry the PFD instruments into the P&ID" after the piping section. Do not use for safety flags, SIL or trip classification, use process-safety-flags instead; do not use to assign tag numbers, 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。

Maps every proposed P&ID object from an accepted enrichment draft to the generic family, catalogue class and required attributes the project's intelligent P&ID authoring tool would need, as a readiness table with UNKNOWN wherever the project catalogue extract is not provided, plus connectivity readiness per line and a numbered list of import blockers. Mapping only: it never writes to the tool, never produces an import file and never claims a class exists in the catalogue. Use when the user asks to "build the readiness map", "show how far the draft is from a sandbox import", "list what would block the import", "map the objects to the tool catalogue" or "check attribute readiness against the catalogue extract" after gate G3. Do not use for validating the discipline sections or assembling the review package, use validation-and-review-package 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。

Author Mermaid diagrams that parse the first time: choose the right diagram type for the question, write syntax the parser accepts, and keep the picture readable in a narrow panel. A bundled reference covers complex, large diagrams.

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 root cause analysis on a bug fix. Use when the user says 'run RCA on [commit/PR]', 'root cause analysis', or 'analyze what caused this bug'. Accepts a commit SHA, PR number, issue, or description of a fix.

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。

概念データモデルの新規作成・更新・レビューを支援する。業務上の概念(エンティティ)とその関連を Mermaid ER 図で表す D2 成果物で、論理 ER 図・テーブル定義(D3)の上流にあたる。PRD・ドメイン要求仕様書群の整備後、データ観点を整理する段階で呼び出す。

画面コンセプト集の新規作成・更新・レビューを支援する。AI駆動開発成果物フローのビジネス要求(D1)に位置する成果物で、プロダクト全体の画面体験コンセプト(体験方向性・体験原則・トーン&マナー方針)と、それを体現する代表シーン2-3を、ビジネスサイドが議論・合意できるサイズに整理する文書。業界を問わず利用可能(業務アプリ・ゲーム・コンシューマー向けサービス・SaaS 等)。プロダクト要求仕様書(PRD)・アクター一覧・ユーザーストーリー一覧を上流とし、下流のワイヤーフレーム・画面遷移図・画面要件群(D2)の判断基準となる画面体験の方向性を定める。全画面の網羅は D2 画面要件群に降ろし、本書はコンセプトと代表シーンに集約する。PRD・ユーザーストーリー一覧の策定後、D2 画面要件群の作成前、もしくはデザイン会社への発注前に呼び出す。

Prepare and launch LoRA, LoKr, or T-LoRA training through lora-scripts-next (SD-Trainer), Anima-first. Use when the user asks to train a character, style, or concept LoRA, choose parameters or repeats and epochs, start a run, or monitor training on Anima, SD1.5, SDXL, or Flux. Organize and caption the dataset, run dataset-doctor, choose a documented starting preset from image count and VRAM, show one confirmation card, then call the mikazuki API and monitor its log.

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。

Implement, debug and review code with focused checks. Use to fix a bug or failing test, refactor, remove code, perform a code review, or plan engineering work in repository records. Combine with UI for interface concerns and Plan for its native records. Excludes conceptual questions unrelated to a codebase.

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。

Get a second opinion from an external LLM at three checkpoints: T1 is the plan valid, T2 which path at a fork, T3 finish plus a QA breaker that tries to break the result. One structured move per exchange (PROPOSE, COUNTER, VERIFY, ACCEPT, BLOCK) with memory across turns, and every exchange mirrored into a human-visible channel. Supports a multi-vendor panel instead of a single reviewer. Triggers: "/secondop", "get a second opinion", "run the review panel".

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。

Turn any hypothesis, however fringe, into an argument map rather than a verdict: five independent lenses (consensus, skeptic, frontier, historian, experimental design), then a synthesis of for and against, evidence quality, a confidence tier and the cheapest decisive experiment. Triggers: "/research-swarm <hypothesis>", "map the arguments on X".

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。

/LLMs решает текущий вопрос через ограниченный консенсус Claude, Codex, Cursor, Grok и других пиров. Передаёт тему и контекст сессии, читает только адресные сообщения этой темы, требует доказательства и закрывает ACCEPT или BLOCK. Триггеры: /LLMs, договорись с другими LLM, найди консенсус моделей

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。

Import a GitBook space (company docs, a whitepaper) into an Obsidian vault as linked atomic notes plus a map-of-content, concept links and a RAG reindex. Idempotent re-import supported. Triggers: "/gitbook-import <url>", "import this gitbook", "gitbook to vault".

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。