347 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-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。
Use when designing, running, or judging an experiment on a Syntropic137 workflow - comparing prompt variants, fan-out vs single agent, adversarial cross-model review, model selection (can Haiku do this job), phase splits, or tool grants. Trigger phrases include "run a workflow experiment", "A/B the workflow", "does fan-out help", "which model for this phase", "is this prompt better", "measure review quality", "why did the workflow do that". Do NOT use for a one-off workflow run that is just doing work, for authoring a workflow that is not being compared against anything, or for debugging a single failed execution (that is ordinary debugging).
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。
Provides AI and machine learning techniques for CTF challenges. Use when attacking ML models, crafting adversarial examples, performing model extraction, prompt injection, membership inference, training data poisoning, fine-tuning manipulation, neural network analysis, LoRA adapt
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。
Comprehensive LLM security testing: bias detection, data leakage, prompt injection, jailbreak, alignment testing, adversarial prompts
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。
Produces and audits externally published marketing copy where factual claims must survive scrutiny — landing pages, product pages, launch emails, one-pagers, search/social metadata. Every statistic, competitor comparison, capability description, and proof point is traced to a fetched source or the project's own documents, labeled, and adversarially verified before it ships. Use when writing or rewriting high-stakes marketing copy; when copy must pass legal, compliance, brand, or claims review; when the audience is skeptical technical or executive buyers; when the company has little or no customer proof yet (pre-launch, zero customers); or when auditing existing copy for unsupported claims, invented capabilities, unverified statistics, or AI-slop language.
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 code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this 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。
Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.
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。
変更が将来インシデントや技術的負債を引き起こすと仮定し、その原因と経路を逆算して設計の盲点を可視化する
コミット/PR の「全部置換した」「-N%削減」等の完了主張を grep で反証できる残骸や best/typical/worst 試算で検証し、抽出・集約リファクタでは並列度(Promise.all)/fast-path/遅延評価の性能特性退行と、Map/Set 集約キーの cross-kind 衝突による検出漏れも監査する
変更に含まれる設計判断・実装選択の論理的整合性を徹底的に検証し、確証バイアスを排除して判断精度を高める
攻撃者・競合・悪意あるユーザーの視点で変更を分析し、防御の盲点と悪用シナリオを可視化する
同一ファイル/隣接ファイル内で「規則Xを守れ」と宣言した直後にXを破っている、宣言と実装の乖離を検出する
モジュール/スキルの構造変更で当該ファイルは更新したが、caller 側が古い構造（旧参照・旧シグネチャ・旧採番）を参照したまま残るパターンを検出する
Orchestrate autonomous AI development pipelines through your Kanban board (Asana, GitHub Projects, Linear). Manages multi-worker Claude Code dispatch, deterministic quality gates, adversarial review, per-task cost tracking, and crash-proof pipeline execution.
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。
Adversarial thesis testing — act as a short seller to find the weakest points in a thesis. Use when user says "stress test", "devil's advocate", "challenge this thesis", or "break [TICKER]".
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。
Adversarial verification of one SDD Composy task in verify_required: reproduce every claim with fresh commands, build the truth table, refute stale evidence, and produce the verdict that gates complete. Use when review is done and the task claims to be finished — 'verificar a TASK-003', 'a task está pronta mesmo?', 'is this task really complete'. Do NOT use for QA, code review, or a general 'verify my work' outside an SDD task.
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 about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, and when a finished feature needs adversarial verification before 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。
Adversarially verify an implementation against its objective, acceptance criteria, definition of done, and prohibitions using fresh evidence. Use for completion gates, release readiness, or independent verification after implementation and 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。
Deliver a small, bounded code change through inspection, a mini-plan, implementation, testing, review, and adversarial verification. Use for bug fixes, configuration changes, and features expected to touch no more than five files.
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。
Adversarial triage of open review findings on a PR. Every finding (Codex, Claude bot, Gemini) is a hostile hypothesis to REFUTE — fix only what is proven real, reachable, in the PR's scope, and above the round's severity bar. The bar rises every review round. Everything else is declined or filed as an issue. Use for 'fix the PR findings', '/fix', '/fix 123', or before any fix commit in a review loop.
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 multiple Reforge-guided section-refactor lanes in parallel, each in its own worktree/branch off origin/main, with a score-blind adversarial review panel gating every commit, one draft PR per section. Use when the user wants to reduce Reforge surface/internal score across several sections at once via architecturally-correct deletions (dead surface, entity-leak removal, cross-section read-splits) — not by relocation, parameter bags, or accessibility-dodging. Wraps the per-lane process in .codex/skills/humans-refactor. Triggers: 'refactor swarm', 'parallel section refactors', 'run reforge refactor on Users/Tickets/...', 'burn down surface score across sections'. Has an intensity dial (light|standard|deep) and a workflow|solo execution mode to trade token burn against autonomy per unit of output.
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。
OpenAI Codex CLI wrapper — three modes. Code review: independent diff review via codex review with pass/fail gate. Challenge: adversarial mode that tries to break your code. Consult: ask codex anything with session continuity for follow-ups. The "200 IQ autistic developer" second opinion. Use when asked to "codex review", "codex challenge", "ask codex", "second opinion", or "consult codex". (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "code x", "code ex", "get another opinion".
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。
Score an unbuilt business idea on desirability, viability, feasibility, distribution wedge, why-now, founder-market-fit, market size, alternatives, defensibility, capital intensity, and regulatory/ethical risk — and return a GO / ITERATE / KILL verdict with kill criteria and a next kill test. Load when the user asks to evaluate a business idea, score a startup idea, screen an idea, decide whether to pursue this venture, do an idea review, or says "is this a good business idea", "should I build this", "evaluate this startup", "screen this idea", "go/no-go on this idea", "kill or pursue". Sub-skill of `venture-exploration`. Calls `fermi` for sizing, `assumption-mapping` for hidden beliefs, optional `pre-mortem` / `adversarial-hat` for high-stakes ideas. Does NOT evaluate built products — for that use `reality-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。
Orchestrate one or more thinking frameworks to work through any problem, decision, document, or idea rigorously. Diagnoses which frameworks fit — inversion, pre-mortem, assumption-mapping, socratic, adversarial-hat — then guides the user through them in the right sequence. Load when the user asks for deep thinking, says "help me think through this properly", "apply your best thinking frameworks", "I need to think carefully before deciding", or "what thinking tools should I use here". Also the entry point for any complex problem where the right framework is unclear. Covers product decisions, engineering tradeoffs, personal decisions, strategy, creative challenges — any domain.
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。