「quest」の検索結果

Record browser or Web UI interaction demos as optimized GIFs using the available built-in browser, state-based frame capture, and deterministic encoding, then publish to a dedicated assets branch when the task includes attaching the GIF to a pull request. Use when asked to make, record, or generate a GIF that demonstrates a browser workflow, and for every pull request that changes product-user-visible GUI behavior, which MUST include a GIF recorded from the pull request's real server and model flow.

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。

Conditional discipline for projects hosted on a git forge (GitHub, GitLab, Forgejo, …): branch↔PR mapping, self-contained PR prose, review-on-forge, merge consent, and the forge audit. Trigger when: - Opening, updating, reviewing, or merging a pull/merge request. - A campaign's integration branch is ready to surface on a forge. - Auditing forge-side presence at merge-consent or campaign CLOSE. - Prompt contains: /forge, pull request, PR body, merge request, forge discipline, PR review, stacked PR.

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 an index built for coding agents — GitHub issues, merged pull requests, repository READMEs, and curated documentation sites — and get back the matched passages, not just links. Use this skill whenever the question is about code: how a library, framework, or API behaves, what an error message or stack trace means, whether a bug was reported or fixed, what a function returns, what a default is, or which repos do a given thing. Triggers on "why does <library> do X", "what does this error mean", "is this a known bug", "how do I use <library>", "what's the API for", pasted stack traces, and pasted error strings. Prefer this over a general web search for programming questions — it answers from the primary source instead of a blog post about it.

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。

Explicit-only workflow that writes a safe Markdown questionnaire for another person. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a questionnaire.

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。

系统化与焦点解决方法：奇迹提问、刻度提问、例外探索、循环提问、假设性提问、恶化提问、应对提问。合并自 solution-focused-therapy 与 systemic-questioning。

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。

Техники системных вопросов: циркулярные вопросы, шкалирующие вопросы, вопрос о чуде и вопросы об исключениях для рефлексии и расширения перспектив.

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。

Métodos sistémicos y enfocados en soluciones: pregunta del milagro, escala, exploración de excepciones, preguntas circulares, preguntas hipotéticas, preguntas de empeoramiento, preguntas de afrontamiento. Fusionado de solution-focused-therapy y systemic-questioning.

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。

システム質問技法：リフレクションと視点の拡張のための循環質問、スケーリング質問、ミラクル・クエスチョン、例外質問。

Системные и ориентированные на решение методы: чудесный вопрос, шкалирование, поиск исключений, циркулярные вопросы, гипотетические вопросы, вопросы на ухудшение, вопросы на преодоление. Объединено из solution-focused-therapy и systemic-questioning.

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。

系统提问技术：循环提问、刻度提问、奇迹提问和例外提问，用于自我反思与视角拓宽。

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。

Técnicas de preguntas sistémicas: Preguntas circulares, preguntas de escala, la pregunta del milagro y preguntas de excepción para la reflexión y la ampliación de perspectivas.

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 draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-request-pack. 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 an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack 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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-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。

Prepares a DRAFT management-of-change intake record from a change description (email, meeting note, marked-up drawing or request form): what changes from what to what and where, the identifiers named, the candidate affected documents matched against the register, the disciplines to consult with the reason for each, and the numbered questions reviewers must answer, with UNKNOWN wherever the description is silent. Prepares the record only: never approves, classifies the change, decides replacement in kind or makes any hazard or safety judgement. Use when the user asks to "raise an MoC for this", "prepare the change request intake", "which documents does this change touch", "who needs to review this change" or "draft the MoC form from this email". Do not use for tracking who owes information to whom across disciplines, use interface-register-builder 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。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. 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 Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-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。

Pre-checks one expense claim or travel plan, line by line, against the expense or travel policy the user supplies, and returns a DRAFT precheck sheet: the policy clause matched to each line, the limit quoted as the policy states it, whether the amount sits within, at or outside that limit, missing receipts, pre-approvals or justifications, and neutral questions for the approver and the claimant, with UNKNOWN wherever the policy or the claim is silent. Use when the user asks to "check this expense claim against policy", "pre-check my travel request", "is this claim within policy", "review these expenses before I submit them", "what receipts or approvals are missing" or "prepare the approver's questions for this claim". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; do not use to compare a policy against a standard or regulation, use policy-gap-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。

When the user wants help with public relations, earned media, press coverage, journalist outreach, or media strategy (not pull requests). Also use when the user mentions 'PR,' 'public relations,' 'press,' 'press release,' 'press coverage,' 'media outreach,' 'pitch a journalist,' 'get featured,' 'media list,' 'media kit,' 'press kit,' 'newsjacking,' 'news hijack,' 'HARO,' 'Qwoted,' 'Featured,' 'Help A Reporter,' 'reporter request,' 'tech press,' 'TechCrunch,' 'earned media,' 'thought leadership placement,' 'op-ed,' 'guest article,' 'press contacts,' or 'how do I get press.' Use this for earned media work — finding journalists, pitching stories, newsjacking, and responding to press requests. For startup/SaaS/AI directory submissions, see directory-submissions. For product launches, see launch. For social-media engagement, see social. For cold-email outreach to prospects, see cold-email.

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。

Sales enablement, technical presales and deal acceleration for B2B SaaS revenue teams. Use this skill when planning outbound campaigns, running discovery calls, building deal strategy, creating battle cards, writing proposals, responding to RFPs, preparing a product demo, scoping a proof of concept or pilot, answering a security questionnaire, executing sales sequences, or coaching qualification. Also triggers on: outbound, cold outreach, deal strategy, pipeline, battle card, proposal, RFP, discovery call, MEDDPICC, sales sequence, qualification, sales engineer, solutions engineer, presales, demo plan, demo script, POC, proof of concept, pilot success criteria, technical evaluation, technical win, security questionnaire, vendor security review, SOC 2 questionnaire, technical objection, mutual action plan, MAP, close plan, mutual close plan, buyer enablement, the deal is stalled, deal stalled after the demo, how do I get this deal to close, close date keeps slipping, JOLT, buyer indecision, no-decision loss.

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。

Complete B2B SaaS marketing agency powered by 79 AI agents across 17 specialties. This is the entry point for ALL marketing requests. Routes to the right specialist team: content marketing, SEO, paid media, social media, email marketing, design, sales enablement (including technical presales — demos, proofs of concept, security questionnaires), product marketing, account-based marketing (ABM), growth, analytics, project management, or client operations. Use this skill when the request spans multiple disciplines or when unsure which specialist to invoke. Also triggers on: marketing help, marketing team, marketing agency, what can you do, marketing capabilities.

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。

plan artifact がある時のみ、plan 中の assumption / open question が実装で解消された証拠を diff・PR 本文と突合する evidence-sufficiency 観点。解消されないまま残った前提・未記録の新規 Unknown を検出する。plan 欠損時は発火しない（Pre-execution Gate）。plan 欠損でも PR 本文に前提が inline 列挙されていれば列挙分のみ部分評価し、計画 issue の bare 参照だけなら skip する