3,247 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Systematically explore an unfamiliar codebase and build a reusable architecture summary. Use for repo onboarding, understanding legacy or inherited code, mapping architecture before a migration or refactor, tracing a bug or feature path, or answering "what does this project do?". Documentation-first, then data flow — ends in a concise technical architecture summary with file:line evidence, not a raw file dump.
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。
Compile deep repository evidence into artifact-bound correctness doctrine — authority/law/proof maps, owned invariants, failure archaeology, and the strongest durable destination for each piece of knowledge, plus an optional minimal repository-specific skill portfolio. Use when the user wants both deep codebase understanding AND durable doctrine, knowledge routing, or repo-specific skill recommendations. Research discoverable facts before asking. Read-only. Not for quick onboarding, one isolated invariant, ordinary implementation, generic review, or direct skill creation.
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。
Build a rich, self-contained HTML explanation of a code change — diff, branch, commit range, MR/PR — with background, intuition, a code walkthrough, diagrams, and a glossary, then quiz the reader interactively in chat. Use when the user asks to explain a change, understand a PR/MR, walk through a diff, onboard onto a branch, or says "explain this PR", "what does this branch do", "teach me this change", or "/explain-diff".
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 Blazor/MudBlazor UI changes involving forms, dialogs, focus, keyboard navigation, landmarks, ARIA, color contrast, RTL-safe styling, or WCAG 2.2 AA tests; not for backend-only changes.
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 Aspire AppHost work: start/stop/wait resources, inspect dashboard/logs/traces, add integrations/resources, rebuild a service, run isolated worktrees, or diagnose Aspire orchestration; not for plain dotnet apps, container-only deployments, or cloud deployment.
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。
Set up bundle IDs, capabilities, signing certificates, provisioning profiles, and encrypted signing sync with the asc cli. Use when onboarding a new app, rotating signing assets, or sharing them across a team.
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 EU Artificial Intelligence Act — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Use for AI system classification (high-risk vs prohibited vs general), conformity assessment procedures, GPAI model obligations, transparency and disclosure requirements, governance structure (AI Office / AI Board), penalty tiers, value-chain operator obligations, post-market monitoring, and Annex III use-case analysis. Does not cover EU liability rules for AI (separate proposed directive) or implementation guidance documents issued after July 2024.
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 FAA Human Factors Design Standard (HF-STD-001B, 2016) — the FAA's consolidated human-factors / human-systems-integration design criteria for systems it manages, operates, or maintains. Use for requirement-level design rules on: general human-factors design principles; automation and function allocation; designing equipment for maintenance; displays, controls, and visual indicators; alarms, audio, and voice communications; the computer-human interface (information presentation, coding, interaction styles, windows, dialogue); keyboards, input devices, and workstation/workplace ergonomics; system security, personnel safety, environment, anthropometry, and user documentation; plus intended-use and tailoring guidance. It is a quantified, source-attributed synthesis (heavily citing MIL-STD-1472G, MIL-HDBK-759C, DOD-HFDG-ATCCS, NUREG-0700, NASA-STD-3000, ANSI, OSHA, ISO 9241). Complements nasa-hsi as a parallel HSI tradition from the civil-aviation domain. Scope limits: it is design criteria, NOT an HSI lifecycle/process model (use nasa-hsi, nasa-npr-7123, or dau-se-guidebook for process); it does NOT reproduce the third-party standards it cites; it is FAA-acquisition-oriented (ATC, towers, TRACONs, airway facilities), not a general consumer-UX guide; and it is thin on modern touchscreen/mobile, web, and AI-driven interface patterns and on quantitative human-reliability analysis.
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 CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0. Use for prioritized IT/OT baseline cyber goals aligned to NIST CSF 2.0 (including GOVERN), critical-infrastructure hygiene, MSP/supply-chain expectations, and board-friendly outcome language. Covers CPG 2.0 goals only; does not replace full CSF programs, sector-specific goals (SSGs), or CSET tooling detail.
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 DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (OUSD R&E, Sep 2023 incl. Change 2.2). Use for the defense-acquisition mechanics of program risk management: the RIO definitions (risk/issue/opportunity), the five-step risk process (plan-identify-analyze-mitigate-monitor), 1-5 likelihood/consequence scoring and the 5x5 risk matrix, the four mitigation options (accept/avoid/transfer/control), burn-down plans, issue management (probability=1), opportunity management toward should-cost, cross-program/interface risk, tailoring RIO to the six AAF acquisition pathways (UCA/MTA/MCA/Software/DBS/Services), specialized methods (RMF, MBCRA/Cyber Table Top, Agile metrics, FMECA, ITRA/DTRAM), and institutionalizing RIO via the PRMP, boards (RMB/JRMB/ROMB/RWG), tools, tiered roles, and WBS/IMP/IMS/EVM/TPM integration. This is the DoD-acquisition complement to nasa-risk (general CRM/RIDM theory) and dau-se-guidebook (the SE process frame). Does NOT teach general risk theory from scratch, and defers specialized risk regimes (system safety/ESOH, HSI, detailed cyber/RMF, spectrum) to their own DoD instructions and the relevant packs.
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。
Zu Beginn einer konkreten Projektaufgabe oder bei unklarem Kontext: Ziel auflösen, geltende Regelhierarchie laden, verbindliche Referenzen verfolgen und vor der eigentlichen Arbeit einen evidenzbasierten Lagebericht erstellen.
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。
Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-tracker. 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。
Maintains four living project files (overview and progress log, decision log, RAID log, links) from the mail, channel posts, documents and meeting notes the user attaches or the agent can reach, returns each touched file complete in the chat for the user to save, and builds a weekly DRAFT status report from those files. Use when the user asks to "set up tracking for project X", "catch the project files up", "log this decision against the project", "add this risk to the RAID log", "save this link to the project" or "write this week's status report". Do not use for reviewing an existing RAID log for stale or ownerless entries, use raid-log-review instead; for an HTML status page, use project-dashboard-builder; for minutes of one meeting, use meeting-minutes-writer. 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。
Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-review 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。
Builds a DRAFT change-communication plan from a change description: audience map, key messages per audience traced to the description, channels, sequence with dates or day offsets, owners, feedback loop and open questions, plus drafts of the first messages for the sponsor to approve. Use when the user asks to "plan the comms for this change", "who needs to hear about this and when", "draft the announcement sequence", "build a communication plan for the rollout", "write the first message to managers about this change" or "how do we tell people about this". Do not use for a clause-by-clause comparison of a changed HR policy with its previous version, use policy-change-briefing instead; for a new hire's first weeks, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。
Builds a DRAFT course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。
Builds a DRAFT structured interview scorecard from a job description: five to eight competencies traced to it, past-behaviour and situational evidence questions with probes, four-level rating anchors written as observable behaviours, a blank scoring sheet, a panel plan and the items the hiring manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an interview scorecard for this job description", "write competency questions for this role", "draft the interview guide for the panel", "set up a rating scale for the interviewers", "put together a structured interview kit" or "create a hiring rubric from the JD". Do not use for writing or fixing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。
Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。
Drafts a DRAFT job description from a role brief, team context and the organisation's own template, in inclusive plain language, with every requirement traced to its source, unconfirmed fields marked TBC and a numbered list of items the hiring manager must confirm before posting. Use when the user asks to "write a job description", "draft the job ad", "refresh this role profile", "tidy up this vacancy notice" or "turn these notes into a job posting" from a brief, notes or an old job description. Do not use for interview questions or a scorecard from the finished job description, use interview-scorecard-builder instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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 Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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。
Turns one decision discussion (meeting transcript, chat thread, email chain or notes) into a DRAFT one-page decision memo: the decision as stated, status, options considered, evidence cited, dissent recorded verbatim, owner, effective date and review date, with UNKNOWN for anything the discussion did not settle. Use when the user asks to "write up the decision", "record what we decided", "capture the decision from this thread", "draft the decision memo" or "add this to the decision log". Do not use for full minutes or action items, use transcript-to-actions instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for a paper seeking a decision not yet taken, use board-paper-skeleton. 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。
Mouse, keyboard, and scroll primitives for cua_click / cua_type / cua_key / cua_scroll. Reference for action shapes, modifier keys, key chord syntax, and screenshot-driven targeting 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。
Operate Stripe's REST API — customers, payments (PaymentIntents / Charges), refunds, subscriptions, invoices, Checkout Sessions, products/prices, payouts, disputes. Use when the user wants to query or mutate Stripe data programmatically without the MCP server or the Dashboard.
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。