384 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when a task needs the judgment of a dermatologist — triaging a pigmented lesion for melanoma risk, choosing a biopsy technique and reading the pathology in clinical context, staging a skin cancer to decide margins or Mohs referral, escalating psoriasis/eczema treatment by severity score, or managing isotretinoin risk under REMS/iPLEDGE rules.
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 a task needs the judgment of a Computer User Support Specialist — triaging an inbound ticket's severity and SLA clock before troubleshooting it, verifying a caller's identity before any password/MFA/account-state change, walking a live incident through a structured troubleshooting sequence instead of guessing at a fix, deciding whether a request is an incident, a service request, or the underlying problem behind a string of incidents, or judging whether a ticket should resolve at tier 1 or genuinely needs escalation.
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 a task needs the judgment of a Chemical Plant and System Operator — reconciling a batch's mass balance to catch a leak or unaccounted reaction that individually normal readings would miss, responding to an early exotherm temperature trend before it accelerates, prioritizing simultaneous alarms by consequence severity rather than order of occurrence, or flagging a combination of near-limit variables that no single-variable check would catch.
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 a task needs the judgment of an audiologist — interpreting an audiogram to classify hearing-loss type and severity, deciding whether a conductive component warrants an ENT referral before amplification, verifying a hearing-aid fitting against prescriptive targets, screening a vestibular/balance complaint, or writing an audiometric report for a referring physician.
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。
Security-focused code review identifying high-confidence exploitable vulnerabilities with two-axis severity/confidence scoring, OWASP 2025 alignment, per-finding Haiku verification, and false positive filtering. Optional GitHub PR posting. Use when user runs /security-review, /review:security-review, requests a "security review", "security audit", "vulnerability scan", or mentions "find vulnerabilities", "check for exploits".
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。
Detect content decay by identifying pages that are losing both clicks and impressions over a 90-day comparison window in Google Search Console. Surfaces pages with true long-term decline (not seasonal variation) and assigns decay severity ratings. Use when user says "content decay", "declining pages", "losing rankings", "pages losing traffic over time", or "90 day decline".
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 emergency and crisis triage systems for call prioritization accuracy, resource dispatching algorithm quality, severity classification model evaluation, response time optimization, geographic coverage analysis, mutual aid protocol readiness, and post-incident review 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。
Detect keyword cannibalization across blog posts by extracting primary keywords from titles and headings, clustering semantically similar targets, and flagging posts competing for the same search intent. Supports local-only mode (grep-based) and DataForSEO API mode (Page Intersection endpoint at ~$0.01/call). Outputs severity-scored report with merge or differentiate recommendations. Use when user says "cannibalization", "keyword overlap", "competing pages", "duplicate keywords", "cannibalize".
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。
Expert guidance for security alert triage in Google SecOps. Use when investigating and triaging security alerts, determining false positives vs. true positives, assessing entity risk, adjusting alert severity or priority, and closing or escalating alerts and cases. Don't use for deep multi-hop incident investigations across host timelines (use secops-investigate), proactive threat hunting or retroactive IoC sweeps (use secops-hunt), or authoring new detection rules (use secops-detection-engineering).
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。
Scan code for security vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and exposed secrets. Use when a user asks to audit security, find vulnerabilities, check for OWASP issues, scan for secrets, review dependencies for CVEs, detect SQL injection, find XSS vulnerabilities, or harden an application. Covers OWASP Top 10, dependency auditing, secrets detection, and generates fix recommendations with severity ratings.
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。
Consult the Eldar — audit a project's moflo + Claude Code setup for portable, high-leverage gaps and guide remediation. Default mode is read-only audit with severity-ranked findings; --fix presents an interactive triage menu and walks the user through each chosen fix (healer, missing CLAUDE.md, sparse guidance, hook/MCP wiring, empty memory namespaces, stack→guidance gaps). Use when starting in a new project, when Claude feels lost or inefficient, when guidance/CLAUDE.md is sparse, or as a periodic health check.
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。
Qualitative quality review of game design documents — answers "is this design good, and does it follow best practices?" — across all three GDD axes: systems, flows, and content types. Fans out adversarial lenses (completeness, clarity, pillar alignment, systems-math, fantasy-delivery, feasibility, scope) plus domain lenses that check it against the game-design rules, each prompted to find problems rather than validate; produces a severity-graded verdict and a two-bucket report (apply-ready fixes vs research), handed to /unikit-gd-apply or /unikit-gd-explore in one move. Scope is inferred: a named system, flow, or content type reviews that document; "all" runs a cross-document review. Use when the user wants a critique, quality judgment, or rules check of the design, e.g. "review the combat GDD", "review the onboarding flow". This is the subjective quality pass — for a mechanical consistency check (numbers, terms, IDs, references matching the registry) use /unikit-gd-verify.
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。
Autonomous comprehensive refactoring. Three-phase pipeline — Phase 1 /refactor (tactical, loops internally to convergence) → Phase 2 loop of /review-arch + /implement-batch until architectural findings converge below a severity floor (default HIGH+) → Phase 3 /refactor (catches tactical issues introduced by restructuring). Auto-approves /review-arch ticket proposals; pulls the andon cord on contested findings, breaking-change proposals, repeated implementation failure, or Phase-2 hard-cap exhaustion (5 architectural iterations).
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。
Autonomous bug-elimination loop. Iteratively invokes /bug-hunt and /implement-batch until findings converge below an operator-specified severity floor. At termination, runs /review-test scoped to the run's new reproducing tests and fixes quality issues above the floor. Auto-approves /bug-hunt and /review-test ticket proposals; pulls the andon cord on contested findings, repeated implementation failure, hard-cap exhaustion, or breaking-change proposals. Optional /refactor finisher.
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。
Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) development patterns. Drug interaction checking, dose validation, clinical scoring (NEWS2, qSOFA), alert severity classification, and integration into EMR 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。
Full-stack diagnostic for agent and LLM applications. Audits the 12-layer agent stack for wrapper regression, memory pollution, tool discipline failures, hidden repair loops, and rendering corruption. Produces severity-ranked findings with code-first fixes. Essential for developers building agent applications, autonomous loops, or any LLM-powered feature.
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。
One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.
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。
Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.
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 compiler/linter errors, deprecation warnings, type errors, failed tests, build config issues. Returns findings with severity, location, effort, recommendations.
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 hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS, insecure dependencies, missing input validation. Returns findings with severity, location, effort, recommendations.
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 DRY (10 types), KISS/YAGNI, error handling, DI patterns. Returns findings with severity, location, effort, pattern_signature.
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。
Scans codebase for hardcoded secrets. Returns normalized findings with severity and remediation guidance. Pre-commit hook 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。
Checks structured logging, health check endpoints, metrics collection, request tracing, log levels. Returns findings with severity, location, effort, recommendations.
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。
QA a change by driving the running dev app like a real QA engineer - start the server and a real browser session, write a checklist from the agreed requirements and the diff, execute every item with evidence, then go looking for anything that looks off even where the diff did not touch. Reports findings by severity and separates regressions from pre-existing problems. Use after a change is implemented and the gates pass, when the user asks to "QA this", "test it in the app", or "check it actually 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。