「exe」の検索結果

Show status of every tracked campaign: health, spend, executions, pending approvals. "what campaigns are running right now"

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。

World-class prompt powerhouse that generates production-ready mega-prompts for any role, industry, and task through intelligent 7-question flow, 69 comprehensive presets across 15 professional domains (technical, business, creative, legal, finance, HR, design, customer, executive, manufacturing, R&D, regulatory, specialized-technical, research, creative-media), multiple output formats (XML/Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini), quality validation gates, and contextual best practices from OpenAI/Anthropic/Google. Supports both core and advanced modes with testing scenarios and prompt variations.

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。

Bridge between Claude Code and OpenAI Codex CLI - generates AGENTS.md from CLAUDE.md, provides Codex CLI execution helpers, and enables seamless interoperability between both tools

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 creating or publishing Claude Code hooks - covers executable format, event types, JSON I/O, exit codes, security requirements, and PRPM package structure

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Sonnet. When invoked by slash command or by name, spawns a Sonnet subagent that follows the staged loop — stage plan, parallel delegation, a failable verification check at each stage, and a skeptical self-review before delivery; a wording-only request runs the loop inline on the current model. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on Sonnet.

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。

Always-on operational guardrails, model-independent. Apply on EVERY task and EVERY model whether or not fable-mode's staged loop is running. Three rules: verify-before-flag, warning batching, and find-and-replace safety. Trigger whenever a response would flag a problem, raise a warning, or edit files with search-and-replace.

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Fable 5.1 — the top of the escalation ladder and the strongest staged run available. Routes the task to the @fable-orchestrator agent with its model overridden to Fable (`model: "fable"`), which stages the work, delegates artifact production to @fable-worker-sonnet / @fable-worker-haiku, and cold-checks deliverables with @fable-verifier. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on the strongest model ("fable on fable", "stage this on fable", "deep work mode, fable", "run this on 5.1"), or when a fable-opus run reports the task exceeds Opus's ceiling. Benchmarked 2026-09-02: zero correctness delta on Fable 5.1 at ~1.1× tokens, ~2× wall — a provenance runner, not an accuracy runner. Do NOT use for ordinary single-pass tasks — prefer fable-opus, fable-sonnet, or fable-haiku when the task doesn't need peak reasoning. Fable is plan-included; bulk work still routes down-tier.

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Haiku. Routes the task to the @fable-worker-haiku agent, whose definition carries the staged loop with tightened verification (no bare "unverified" allowed) and an escalate-don't-improvise rule. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic handling run cheaply or fast ("fable on haiku", "deep work mode but cheap", "stage this on haiku"). For bulk mechanical work. Do NOT use for tasks needing synthesis — benchmark note: at n=1 the skill's effect on Haiku swung both directions (+25 / −17); route quality-critical work to fable-sonnet instead.

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Opus — the top of the escalation ladder. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on Opus ("fable on opus", "stage this on opus", "deep work mode, opus"). When a task exceeds Opus's ceiling, report that to the user rather than escalating further.

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。

Enforces staged execution discipline on large tasks: a written stage plan, parallel delegation where the runtime supports it, a failable verification check at each stage, and a skeptical self-review before delivery. Trigger when the user explicitly asks OR when the task objectively spans multiple files, sources, or sessions. Do NOT trigger on ordinary multi-step requests that a direct attempt handles fine (autonomous triggering only; explicit invocation always runs).

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 has run multiple evaluation skills and wants a comprehensive analysis — maturity assessment, cross-skill signals, trends, prioritized actions, and an executive summary. Also use when the user mentions eval health check, evaluation audit, ship readiness, evaluation maturity, or "how good is my evaluation system itself." This is a read-only analysis skill.

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 has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining multiple metrics into a composite score, or building an automated evaluation pipeline. Also use when the user mentions grader selection, metric design, judge prompt engineering, rubric design, evaluation pipeline code, or "how to evaluate [X] automatically." Outputs executable OpenJudge pipeline 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。

Generate scaffolds supporting student self-regulation across planning, monitoring, and evaluation phases. Use when students struggle to manage their own learning during extended or independent tasks.

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 an uninterrupted work cycle with choice-based activities structured within a realistic time block. Use when planning Montessori-style independent work periods or extended choice time.

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。

Risk-based vendor assessment framework for IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners under DORA, NIS2, GDPR. Provides three-phase process (Initial Screening / Detailed Assessment / Final Evaluation), six-dimension risk scoring (Financial/Operational/Compliance/Security/Reputational/Strategic) with weighted matrices, full DORA Art. 28-30 contractual checklist, NIS2 Art. 21(2) security measures enumeration, GDPR Art. 28 documentation checks, red flags per dimension, trigger-based review criteria, and document templates. Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting critical ICT third-party due diligence under DORA, (3) Performing supply chain security assessment under NIS2, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring, (6) Assessing concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive vendor risk reports.

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。

First-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice. Use this skill whenever the user references a specific US statute, regulation, ordinance, or rule by citation, asks "what does [statute X] require," asks for compliance scoping, applicability thresholds, requirement extraction, exemption analysis, definitional analysis, federal preemption analysis, or multi-state comparison — even if they don't explicitly ask for "statutory analysis." Halts and asks for missing inputs rather than guessing. Out of scope for non-US law.

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 an AI agent skill before installing it. Use proactively whenever the user is about to add, install, enable, or evaluate an unfamiliar skill — including phrases like "audit this skill", "is this skill safe", "scan skill before install", "check skill for malicious code", "review this plugin", or any pre-install gate on an untrusted, third-party, or community-distributed skill bundle. Runs ten categories of static checks (code execution, network exfiltration, credential harvesting, persistence, prompt injection, supply-chain hooks, obfuscation, destructive filesystem ops, secrets, Trojan Source / homoglyphs) and emits a PASS / WARN / FAIL verdict.

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。

Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight. Trigger on: 'make sense of this', 'structure this for the proposal', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'what are we doing', 'who are the stakeholders', 'what does success look like', 'matter setup', 'intake', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client data'.

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。

Edit mathematically, empirically, or technically dense papers for readers outside the author’s specialty, including empirical legal scholarship, law-and-economics models, and legal-technology research. Clarifies terminology, antecedents, study design, and claim–statistic relationships while checking equations, numbers, quotations, and citations against the source. Use to clarify exposition or de-jargonize a technical draft; not to rewrite briefs or doctrinal arguments. Produces an edited draft and audit memo. Full integrity checks and original-format rendering require suitable extraction, code execution, and document tools; otherwise provides proposed edits with verification limits disclosed.

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。

Assistant académique pour enseignants-chercheurs en droit. Six tâches : (1) recherche juridique approfondie avec accent doctrinal, (2) relecture de documents avec vérification des références, commentaires Word, détection d'indices de plagiat/IA et cohérence argumentative, (3) création de sujets et corrigés d'exercices juridiques universitaires, (4) mise à jour de cours, ouvrages et documents juridiques, (5) création de cours avec support docx et PPTX, (6) préparation de fiches de TD. MCP : OpenLegi, Themia, LegalDataHunter. Déclencher pour toute demande liée à l'enseignement ou la recherche en droit : cours, TD, fiches de TD, examens, sujets, corrigés, relecture, mise à jour, recherche doctrinale. NE PAS déclencher pour les QCM (utiliser qcm-generator).

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 the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

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。

EU Digital Regulation Legal Analysis Forge — generates a tailored expert prompt for structured legal analysis of an EU digital-regulation document, optionally executes it in-session, and always produces a plain-English explainer alongside the formal output. Handles Regulations, Directives, Commission Guidelines, EDPB Opinions, CJEU and AG judgments, national DPA decisions, codes of conduct, and draft consultations across the EU digital stack.

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 compliance with the EU General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice under the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). Use when asked to determine GPAI model provider obligations, assess Code of Practice compliance, evaluate transparency or copyright requirements for GPAI models, check systemic risk obligations, build a GPAI compliance roadmap, or prepare for AI Office requests. Covers all three Code chapters (Transparency, Copyright, Safety & Security), the 12 commitments and their measures, systemic risk classification (Article 51), provider obligations (Articles 53 and 55), open-source exemptions, enforcement timeline, Commission/AI Office supervision, and DACH-specific overlays such as BSI cybersecurity and works council implications. Triggers on phrases like "GPAI compliance", "Code of Practice assessment", "GPAI model obligations", "systemic risk evaluation", "AI Act transparency requirements", "GPAI copyright policy", "general-purpose AI compliance".

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。

Searches the domestic courts of 122 jurisdictions — 153 databases, 49 automated — for extradition and arrest-warrant surrender decisions, each in its own language and vocabulary. Answers the question no commercial database does: how are OTHER executing states treating this requesting state, or this ground? Searching by requesting state localises its name per jurisdiction (AE becomes 'Emiratele Arabe Unite' in Romania, 'Emirati Arabi Uniti' in Italy), so the sweep finds what those courts actually wrote. Every hit passes a relevance gate; every search leaves a dated report, so the research is reconstructable months later. Use when asked what foreign courts have said about surrender to a given state, whether any European court has refused extradition on prison conditions, assurances or Article 3, for comparative extradition research, or to build a foreign-authority section of an extradition argument. Not for domestic case law of the user's own jurisdiction, and never a substitute for reading the judgment.

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。