「case」の検索結果

Add a new E2E test case to tests/e2e/prompts.yaml for LangSmith evaluation. Use when adding interaction pairs to test, covering new ANSM drug classes, or rebalancing eval coverage.

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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n issues.

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。

Systematic testing methodology for exhaustive branch coverage, edge case identification, and production bug prevention. Use when PR review reveals incomplete test coverage, when tests pass but users report bugs, when code changes break existing features, when verifying all branches and edge cases before merge, when analyzing "it works on my machine" issues, when planning test strategy for new features, or when debugging flaky tests and race conditions.

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 BEFORE writing any test — enumerate cases per behavior (happy / boundary / error / abuse), prioritize by likelihood × impact, cross-check via subagent — even if the user just says 'add tests'.

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。

[Documentation] Use when you need to generate a step-by-step demo guide (demo script / walkthrough) covering all main user stories and their test cases — scope from a named feature, else the current working context, else confirm with the user — explaining for each case how the domain data is stored/changed and how the domain solves the feature. Triggers: demo guide, generate demo guide, demo script, demo walkthrough, how to demo, prepare demo, sprint demo, user story demo.

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。

医学证据等级排序与编排层 skill - evidence grading orchestrator. 当用户请求"证据等级 / GRADE / 证据排序 / 医学证据评估 / 系统评价排序 / 临床证据排序 / 证据金字塔 / 给 PMID 打分 / Practice Guideline 优先 / Cochrane 优先 / 反向证据交叉验证 / evidence grading / quality of evidence / evidence pyramid / GRADE assessment / Cochrane review ranking / clinical evidence ranking"时,**调用本 skill 进行医学证据自动分级,自动选择最佳信息源**。本 skill 是编排层(L2)·不直接打 NCBI/Europe PMC/ClinicalTrials API,而是编排 6 个底层原子 skill(pubmed-eutils / europepmc-search / clinical-trials-v2 / aact-bulk-trials / bioc-fulltext-fetch / pubtator-entity-search)的召回结果,按证据金字塔(指南 > Meta > RCT > Cohort > Case-Control > Case Report)做 GRADE A/B/C/D 自动评级,自动剔除 editorial/letter/comment。优先使用 BioMCP MCP server 做 fan-out(genomoncology/biomcp);无 BioMCP 时走自建 slow-path 兜底。跨平台无锁(Claude Code / Codex / Gemini CLI)。

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。

医学证据等级排序与编排层 skill。当用户请求"证据等级 / GRADE / 证据排序 / 医学证据评估 / evidence grading / quality of evidence / 系统评价排序 / 临床证据排序 / 证据金字塔"时触发。本 skill 不直接调用 NCBI/Europe PMC/ClinicalTrials API,而是编排 6 个底层原子 skill(pubmed-eutils / europepmc-search / clinical-trials-v2 / aact-bulk-trials / bioc-fulltext-fetch / pubtator-entity-search)的召回结果,按 ChatGPT 推荐的证据金字塔(指南 > Meta > RCT > Cohort > Case-Control > Case Report)做 GRADE 自动评级,自动剔除 editorial / letter / comment。优先使用 BioMCP MCP server 做 fan-out(genomoncology/biomcp),无 BioMCP 时走自建 slow-path 兜底。

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 a deep, honest peer-review of how someone uses Claude Code by statistically analyzing their local session data (~/.claude/usage-data/ and ~/.claude/projects/). Trigger whenever the user asks to review, analyze, audit, or critique their own Claude Code usage, workflow, habits, or skill level — including phrases like "analyze my cc usage", "review my cc sessions", "peer review my cc workflow", "deeper than /insights", or any ask for an honest audit of their AI workflow. Also covers portfolio/hiring-manager framings (e.g. "portfolio for Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI"), but ALWAYS ask the user in Step 0 which version to build (self / hr / both) before running — never silently produce an HR report, because that version goes to outsiders and needs explicit privacy setup. The HTML report is laid out ledger-first for SELF (opening band, output/team/leak/trend ledgers, then peer review, 9-dim scoring, try-this-week, case study, claim-indexed evidence). The HR variant is a recruiter version v1: identity card, earned badges (threshold-based, earned-only), allowlist-filtered output ledger, one case study, and a methodology & scope disclosure — no scores, no peer-review memo, no charts.

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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n issues.

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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n issues.

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。

Draft or refine the test-cases checklist for this card

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。

Write automated tests for unticked scenarios in this card's test cases

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, modify, or refactor application use cases into Laravel-native DDD Actions. Use for business operations such as placing or cancelling orders, extracting controller orchestration, and fixing use-case behavior.

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 business analysis skill aligned with BABOK® Guide v3 standards. Use this skill when you need to elicit and document requirements, analyze business processes, conduct stakeholder analysis, develop business cases, perform gap analysis, or create business requirements documents (BRD). Ideal for requirements gathering, process mapping (BPMN), financial analysis (ROI, NPV), stakeholder engagement, and solution evaluation. Triggers: "gather requirements", "create business case", "analyze process", "stakeholder analysis", "gap analysis", "BRD", "functional requirements", or requests involving business analysis tasks.

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 a set of Rosetta Stone attribute mappings to a Narrative dataset by wrapping them in a one-shot workflow that calls the `CreateRosettaStoneMappingsIfNotExist` task. Consumes the structured output of `/generate-rosetta-stone-mappings`, normalizes the generator's snake_case to the workflow task's camelCase, re-validates every expression against the dataset's current schema, gates on user approval, submits via `narrative_workflows_create`, polls the triggered run, and reports per-mapping created / conflict / failed. Use when: "apply these mappings to dataset N", "create the Rosetta Stone mappings I just generated", "push the mappings I saved earlier to <dataset>", "productionize this mapping list", "submit the suggested_mappings array". (narrative-common)

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 synthesized from the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v2.14 by the BKCASE Project. Use for the established systems-engineering canon: SE fundamentals and foundations (systems science, systems thinking, the systems approach, modelling/MBSE), the life cycle (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748/24774 process, development & agile approaches, model selection/tailoring), technical management, concept definition, architecture/realization (the Vee), V&V, maintenance/sustainment, SE standards, and the application contexts (product, service, enterprise, systems-of-systems, healthcare), plus enabling SE (business/team/individual), related disciplines, quality attributes/specialty engineering, implementation examples, and emerging knowledge. Good for grounding background, vocabulary, and prior-art positions across all eight SEBoK Parts. SCOPE LIMITS: this pack is SEBoK v2.14 only (released 2026-05-18); it synthesizes and signposts rather than reproducing the source — it does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE standard text, is a curated guide (not a complete textbook), and is thin on AI-integration depth (Part 8 is a staging area, not settled practice). LICENCE: content is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 — non-commercial use only, attribution to the BKCASE Project required, share-alike obligations carry forward.

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 Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-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。

Assembles a DRAFT capital expenditure request pack from the requester's inputs: business need, options including do nothing, costs exactly as provided, benefits as stated, risks, assumptions, budget status and the approvals route read from the organisation's own delegation of authority, with UNKNOWN for every missing figure, date or name. Use when the user asks to "prepare a capex request", "draft the business case for this equipment", "fill in the capital request form", "structure this investment proposal" or "what approvals does this spend need". Do not use for a board or committee decision paper, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for an IT change approval, use change-request-pack; to pressure-test a finished business case, use cfo-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-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。

ISTQB/JSTQB のテストプロセス各工程の出口ゲートとして、工程成果物（test-plan.md / test-analysis.md / test-design.md / test-case.md / テスト実装 / test-execution-log.md / test-monitoring.md / test-summary-report.md）をレビューするスキル。決定論スクリプトの機械検査（トレーサビリティ ID 突合・テンプレ準拠）と test-reviewer サブエージェントの定性レビューを行い、利用者が通過/条件付き通過/差し戻しを判定して軽量記録 test-review-<工程>.md を残す。上流の仕様・基本設計（spec / design-doc 工程。docs/dev/<対象>/spec.md・basic-design.md）は機械検査と利用者判定のみの軽量ゲートとして扱う。各工程スキル（test-plan〜test-report / feature-spec / basic-design）が完了宣言の前に本スキルの実行を促す。ソースコード diff のレビュー（diff-review）とは別物で、対象はテストプロセスの成果物のみ。成果物の修正・代作はしない。/test-review <テスト対象名> [工程] で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

ISTQB/JSTQB のテスト設計（test design）活動を支援するスキル。test-analyze が識別したテスト条件から、テスト対象の特性に応じたテスト技法（同値分割・境界値分析・デシジョンテーブル・状態遷移・カバレッジ基準・エラー推測など）を選定提案し、承認された技法で具体的なテストケース（入力値・前提・期待結果）を導出して、設計書 test-design.md（技法選定根拠・カバレッジ）とケース一覧 test-case.md の 2 本を作る。「テストケースを作って」「テストケースを設計して」「どの技法で網羅すべきか提案して」「境界値/デシジョンテーブルでテストを起こして」と依頼されたときに使う。テストコード実装（test-implement）は対象外。単発のテスト作成依頼（単にユニットテストを書きたいだけ）も対象外。/test-design <テスト対象名> で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

Use when the user asks to "package our proof points", "build reusable stat cards and case snippets", or "put proof where each pillar makes its claim"; turns claims-ledger-approved proofs into reusable proof modules — stat cards, case snippets, testimonial blocks, comparison proofs — each pinned to a message-house pillar and the ledger claim ID it substantiates, and flags any pillar making a claim with no approved proof behind it. Never adjudicates a proof: unverified or ledger-absent proofs are marked '[needs source]' and routed to the claims candidates. Not for adjudicating or substantiating claims — use offer-claims-registry; not for fabricating a benchmark to fill a gap — a missing proof is flagged, not invented; not for scoring narrative quality — use narrative-quality-auditor. 证据模块/证据卡/客户案例/主张对齐

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。

Master orchestrator for B2B SaaS content creation and the editorial production system behind it. Use this skill to produce blog articles, whitepapers, case studies, video scripts, newsletters and ghostwritten thought leadership, to develop content strategy, and to run the publishing line itself — content briefs, editorial calendars and production capacity, review and approval workflow, subject-matter-expert access, the style guide, an AI-drafting policy, and a content inventory with owners. Also triggers on: blog, article, case study, whitepaper, newsletter, video script, ghostwriting, content calendar, editorial, thought leadership, content strategy, content brief, content operations, content ops, editorial workflow, managing editor, who reviews this, our content pipeline is stuck, content is stuck in review, content audit, content inventory, content governance, style guide, house style, SME interview, expert interview, freelance writers, AI content policy, how much content can we actually produce.

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。