3,470 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Synthesize user interviews, observations, surveys, support tickets, reviews, or feedback into traceable themes, insights, tensions, opportunities, and research gaps; use when evidence must inform product or design decisions.
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。
Review a product requirement, PRD, brief, or meeting note before design or development; expose missing decisions, contradictions, edge cases, dependencies, and validation gaps without inventing business 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。
Review WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) Excel files against requirements docs, hearing sheets, and prior decisions to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and deviations. Add review comments to Excel cells and generate summary 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。
Cross-reference project artifacts (WBS, meeting minutes, requirements docs) by date, participant, and action items. Extract commitments from meeting minutes and link to WBS tasks. Generate traceability reports showing which decisions were captured in which documents.
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。
Review meeting minutes documents for completeness, action item clarity, decision documentation, and consistency with source materials like hearing sheets. Use when validating meeting minutes quality or preparing minutes for distribution.
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。
Professional financial analysis skill for investment decisions, budgeting, financial statement analysis, and business plan evaluation. Use this skill when you need to analyze financial ratios (profitability, safety, efficiency), calculate DCF/NPV/IRR valuations, perform budget variance analysis, or conduct sensitivity/scenario analysis. Triggers include "analyze financial statements", "calculate DCF", "investment evaluation", "budget variance", "財務分析", "投資評価", "予算差異分析".
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。
Bootstrap a new or existing project with a small, file-based documentation system so Claude Code keeps context, lessons, and decisions across session restarts instead of starting cold every time. Sets up a handful of markdown files under .claude/ (standing rules, a free-form note to your next session, a phased roadmap, a prioritized backlog, and searchable history/changelog archives) sized and split so the files read every session stay small while the archives grow without ever costing context. Use this whenever someone is starting a new project and asks how to structure it for long-running AI-assisted work, wants Claude to "remember" things between sessions without relying on chat history, asks for a CLAUDE.md + backlog + changelog setup, mentions "session continuity", "persistent context", "project memory system", or is retrofitting an existing codebase that has no such system yet. Also use to explain or extend an already-bootstrapped bottle system (add a rule, start the archival script, add a new backlog section).
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。
Create, verify, transfer, and resume compact project handoff packets for long-running Codex work. Use after a second observed automatic context compaction, immediately after a third compaction, when attention or constraints degrade, a major phase ends, the user asks to move work into a fresh task, work must pause, or an existing handoff needs to be imported. Do not interrupt after the first normal compaction. Always ask before creating a new task, transfer the global roadmap only after explicit consent, preserve the old task title when available, then require the fresh task to ask what work matters most. Preserve objectives, constraints, decisions, evidence, approval boundaries, workspace state, validation, and risks without treating an old summary as current truth.
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 starts a non-trivial coding/building task in Claude Code (e.g. "帮我做个 X", "help me build Y", "add feature Z", "搭一个 Z"). Layers an AI-native pedagogical coat over normal coding work — surfaces implicit assumptions in user intent, annotates non-trivial design decisions inline with brief concept-scaffolding for terms the user may not know, and replaces "should I run it?" handoffs with rigorous AI self-verification plus a clean list of what only the user can verify. Skip for pure Q&A, single-line edits, read-only investigation, or refactoring along an existing pattern.
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。
Interview the user deeply about a plan, probing technical implementation, UI/UX, risks, tradeoffs, and missing decisions before writing or refining a spec. Use when the user says "interview me" or asks to be questioned about a 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。
Clarify ambiguous or conflicting requests by researching first, then asking only judgment calls. Use when prompts say "grill me", ask hard questions, request relentless interrogation, pressure-test assumptions, clarify scope/requirements, define success criteria, or request system-design/optimization decisions before implementation; stop before implementation.
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 a Marty-Cagan-style opportunity assessment interview and produce a ~2-page Opportunity Brief in Confluence. Covers business objective, customer, problem, success metric, current alternatives, assumptions/risks, and what we don't know yet. Triggers on "opportunity brief", "opportunity assessment", "discovery brief", "who is this for", "why are we building this", "validate this idea", "product discovery", or any request to frame a feature before implementation. One question at a time. Records accepted research gaps as structured Confluence Decision pages with bidirectional links.
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。
Iterative deep planning with critiques and alternatives. Use when facing complex design decisions, cross-platform changes, native module modifications, or API changes requiring thorough 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。
Update docs, playbooks, shims, generated docs, and alignment checks so public instructions route to the right canonical sources.
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。
Review whether a Clawix UI pattern, visual decision, copy change, or component extraction belongs in canon, debt, exception, or protected-surface scope.
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 a new or changed ADR into implemented behavior, routing docs, tests, and guardrails rather than leaving it as standalone prose.
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 code, docs, tests, and registries against the Constitution, ADRs, and decision map without making broad repairs. Use when checking whether the repository is drifting away from accepted architecture.
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。
Crystallize shared understanding into a reviewable spec, or update an existing one. Use when the problem needs a written specification, when assumptions or decisions have changed, or when the user says 'write a spec'.
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 NIST SP 800-37 Revision 2, the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for information systems and organizations. Use for the seven RMF steps (Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, Monitor) and their tasks; the three-tier organization-wide risk model; authorization boundaries; the requirements-to-controls relationship; security categorization (FIPS 199/200 high-water mark) and control selection/tailoring (SP 800-53/53B baselines); assessment, the authorization decision and risk acceptance, continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization; the security/privacy distinction; and supply chain risk management. This is the security-and-privacy-risk-governance edge of systems engineering — it governs how much protection and whether to accept residual risk, complementing the disciplines that decide how protection is built. Does NOT reproduce the SP 800-53 control catalog or its baselines, the FIPS impact tables, or the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text; it names and routes to them rather than restating them.
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 NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 second edition.
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 OMB Circular A-94 (revised 2023-11-09) on guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of federal programs. Use for BCA principles, benefit/cost measurement, discount-rate policy, uncertainty/sensitivity, distributional incidence, and decision reporting. Rescoped at build to A-94 only (Army CBA Guide unreachable). Does not replace A-11 budget preparation detail, agency-specific statutory BCA rules, or Army CEAC process templates.
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 Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering (NASA/SP-2016-6105-SUPPL, Volume 1, March 2016) — the practitioner-depth supplement to the NASA SE Handbook. Use for the load-bearing mechanics the handbook compresses: the SE Engine's per-phase cadence and the iterative-vs-recursive distinction, the AS9100 crosswalk, life-cycle tailoring vs. customization and the Compliance Matrix, the recursive system-design consistency loop (ConOps vs. Operations Concept, requirement flow/type/ownership, successive refinement), product realization (verify/qualify/accept/certify cardinality, protoflight, 'test the way we fly' coverage, two-form transition), and the crosscutting technical-management procedures (six-step scheduling, cost-estimating method selection, JCL, interface document family, RIDM/CRM, CM baselines, EVM arithmetic, MOE/MOP/KPP/TPM, the three required leading indicators, and the decision-analysis method catalog). This is the DEPTH layer — it deliberately does NOT restate the base definitions; pair it with the nasa-se-handbook pack. Scope: NASA space-flight SE practice (Vol 1 Practices); thin on the Vol 2 process-appendix detail, on non-NASA/commercial life cycles, and on software-engineering methodology.
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 DOE Order on Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (DOE O 413.3 series). Use for Critical Decisions CD-0–CD-4, performance baselines, acquisition strategy and IPTs, cost/schedule/EVMS/PARS controls, risk-informed governance, reviews, and contractor requirements. Built from O 413.3C (2026-08-05), which cancels O 413.3B Chg 7 (2023-06-21); does not replace site-specific procedures, nuclear safety rules detail, or full estimating standards.
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 NASA Risk Management Handbook (NASA/SP-2011-3422). Use for risk-informed decision making, continuous risk management, performance commitments, risk scenario diagrams, risk disposition types, risk burn-down schedules, objectives hierarchies, deliberation and alternative selection, risk driver identification, and RM planning for space and safety-critical programmes. Does not cover domain-specific PRA methods (fault trees, event trees) in procedural depth — see NASA PRA Procedures Guide for those.
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。