「rspec」の検索結果

"Apply Affordance Theory (Gibson, 1979; Norman, 1988) to analyze the action possibilities that an artifact provides to an actor. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate technology design from an affordance perspective, identify why users struggle with an interface, analyze IT-enabled organizational change through affordance actualization, or when they ask 'what does this technology afford', 'why can't users figure out this feature', or 'how does technology enable new practices'.".

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。

Ask the minimum clarifying questions before implementing when scope, constraints, or success criteria are unclear. Use when a request has multiple plausible interpretations, missing acceptance criteria, or ambiguous environment constraints.

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。

"Apply the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework to translate strategy into measurable objectives across Financial, Customer, Internal Process, and Learning & Growth perspectives. Use this skill when the user needs to set strategic KPIs, create a strategy map, align organizational goals, or connect daily operations to strategic vision — even if they say 'how do we measure strategy execution' or 'our KPIs feel disconnected'.".

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。

Container and Kubernetes security assessment. Tests container escape vectors, Docker/containerd socket exposure, K8s RBAC misconfigurations, pod security violations, exposed API servers, etcd access, service account token abuse, image layer secrets, private registry attacks, SSRF to metadata services, cross-namespace network bypass, CIS benchmarks, crypto miner detection, resource exhaustion, and admission controller gaps. Both external and internal (compromised pod) perspectives. Uses trivy, kube-bench, kubectl, nuclei, dive, amicontained, and docker-bench-security. Covers OWASP Kubernetes Top 10 and all 22 Kubernetes Goat attack scenarios.

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。

Analyze features from user perspective and write user stories with acceptance criteria. Use when defining requirements, writing user stories, validating scope against project state, prioritizing features by impact, comparing approaches, analyzing user needs, or planning next work. Triggers: "user story", "acceptance criteria", "scope", "prioritize", "compare requirements", "user needs", "what to build next".

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 a dual-lens critical review of the specification and plan from both product strategy and engineering risk perspectives 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。

Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the 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。

Audit any product from a Customer Success Manager perspective -- evaluate onboarding flow completeness, self-service help infrastructure, customer health signal tracking, support channel accessibility, expansion and retention triggers, and customer communication systems.

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。

Fetch the latest AI/ML news, trending open-source projects, social media discussions, and KOL (Key Opinion Leader) perspectives from 370+ curated sources. Use when the user asks about recent AI news, AI trends, what's happening in machine learning, open-source AI projects, AI Twitter/Reddit discussions, or wants a daily AI briefing.

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 designing, reviewing, or debugging Salesforce Flows from an Admin perspective. Triggers: 'flow', 'automation', 'record-triggered flow', 'screen flow', 'scheduled flow', 'flow error', 'flow interview', 'before-save vs after-save', 'flow deployed as draft', 'entry criteria', 'fault connector', 'flow-meta.xml', 'FlowDefinitionView'. NOT for Flow debug mode, Run As user, or Flow test suites — use flow/flow-debugging. NOT for building an OmniStudio OmniScript — use omnistudio/omniscript-design-patterns.

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 enabling, configuring, or monitoring Change Data Capture (CDC) entity selection, channel enrichment, and delivery usage limits from an admin perspective. Covers the PlatformEventChannel and PlatformEventChannelMember metadata, the standard ChangeEvents channel, custom __chn data channels, enrichedFields, filterExpression, destructive deselection, and PlatformEventUsageMetric / EventBusSubscriber monitoring. Trigger keywords: change data capture, CDC, entity selection, change event, platform event channel, channel member, enrichment, event delivery allocation. NOT for writing an Apex change-event trigger — use apex/change-data-capture-apex. NOT for subscribing an external system over Pub/Sub or CometD — use integration/change-data-capture-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。

Expert in the medieval problem of universals, covering Platonic realism, Aristotelian moderate realism, and Ockhamist nominalism with modern analytical perspectives

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。

Multi-agent orchestration patterns. Use when multiple independent tasks can run with different domain expertise or when comprehensive analysis requires multiple perspectives.

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 the Advisory Council — a multi-perspective market analysis that spawns 5 AI advisors (The Skeptic, The Macro Bull, The Risk Manager, The Technical Analyst, The Contrarian) powered by MiniMax M2...

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。

Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective. Use when you're unfamiliar with a section of code or need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.

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。

Search real-time news with bias scoring, get live stock/ETF/crypto data with AI analysis, price options with ML models, and synthesize balanced news perspectives via the Helium MCP server.

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。

Council — 5 independent AI perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis (adapted from karpathy/llm-council for Claude Code). For high-stakes decisions where the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the data — go/no-go before real consequences, critiquing a methodology, choosing between competing approaches, pressure-testing a conclusion you're attached to, designing risk controls. NOT for log/data analysis (the council has no data access) and not for factual lookups. Triggers — "convene the council", "run it past the council", "go/no-go", "pressure-test this".

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。

Code review from the Kent Beck Simple Design 4 Rules perspective. God Object splitting, SRP, duplication removal, naming, cyclomatic complexity. Triggered by "kent beck", "simple design", "simplify", "refactoring" ("리팩토링"), "refactor", "god object", "SRP" keywords.

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。

Select complementary review lenses for a requested multi-perspective review or a high-risk GEODE change. Covers design, agent constraints, gateway operations, and CLI/tool behavior; not a mandatory four-agent gate for ordinary edits.

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 and analyzes U.S. appellate amicus curiae briefs for non-parties with Rule 29/Rule 37 compliance, unique perspective development, and Bluebook-ready citations. Use when asked to draft or review an amicus brief, friend-of-the-court brief, non-party brief, or anything involving FRAP 29, Supreme Court Rule 37, or appellate amicus practice.

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。

Multi-agent collaboration bringing 2-4 perspectives into one discussion for architecture decisions and trade-off analysis. Use for 'should we X or Y', design review, or debate before deciding.

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。

Multi-agent collaboration session. Brings 2-4 agent perspectives into one discussion for architecture decisions and trade-off analysis. Use when asked "should we X or Y?", "let's discuss", or "design review".

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 raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until the problem, requirements, goals, non-goals, and constraints are CONFIRMED, then deliver a single verdict — do, don't, cheaper alternatives, trade-offs, ordered checklist, success metrics. Required: the user wants exactly ONE recommendation — not options, not a debate — and their framing is open to challenge (advise may answer a different question than the one asked). Triggers on "what should I do about X", "advise me on X", "am I approaching this right", "is this the right move". Do NOT use to be interrogated with no recommendation (→ mk:grill) — advise also interviews one question at a time, but only to reach a verdict. Do NOT use when the framing is settled and only the options are open (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to decide whether something is worth building (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when you want several perspectives to argue it out (→ mk:party).

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。

Multi-agent structured debate with anti-groupthink mechanisms — Devil's Advocate, minority opinion protection, 2-round hard cap. Use when divergent perspectives matter more than consensus (architecture decisions, design tradeoffs, contested specifications).

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。