「decision」の検索結果

Use when designing new high-level system architecture, reviewing existing designs, or making architectural decisions. Invoke to create architecture diagrams, write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), evaluate technology trade-offs, design component interactions, and plan for scalability. Use for system design, architecture review, microservices structuring, ADR authoring, scalability planning, and infrastructure pattern selection — distinct from code-level design patterns or database-only design 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。

Review open NPRM comment periods, log decisions, track deadlines. Use when an NPRM has a comment window open and you need to surface deadlines, decide whether to file, or record a filing / not-filing / waived decision (--decide CMT-ID).

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。

Reference for using Plannotator (its `plannotator` tool when you have one, otherwise the CLI): plan review, code review, annotating files, URLs, folders, and running local apps, annotating the last assistant message, browsing archived plan decisions, exporting or sharing Guided Reviews, and the Plannotator Inbox (messages and questions the person answers later, without blocking you). Invoke when asked to use Plannotator for anything not covered by a more specific plannotator-* skill, and before you leave the person a decision, a question or finished work while they are away from the chat (if another agent started you, report to it instead).

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。

Decision needed + recommendation + evidence + tradeoffs, 把复杂材料压成可拍板的一页

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。

Research why the TypeScript team made a specific typing decision. Use when evaluating whether ts-reset should override a built-in type, or when triaging issues that propose type changes. Searches the microsoft/TypeScript repo for relevant issues, PRs, and team comments.

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。

Typed decision expert. ALWAYS invoke this skill when you need structured classification, scoring, or probability estimation — routing tickets, grading content, detecting intent, or any task requiring typed answers with calibrated confidence.

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。

Capture conversations and decisions into structured Notion pages; use when turning chats/notes into wiki entries, how-tos, decisions, or FAQs with proper linking.

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 product or business data to support a decision or recommendation. Use when a decision depends on metric-backed evidence, such as choosing a direction, prioritizing an opportunity, evaluating a change, segmenting users, sizing tradeoffs, or deciding what to do 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。

Use when classifying a slice closeout (auto-continue / human gate / park), routing a real decision to a human, or designing a human queue/dashboard surface. Treats humans as durable network participants with attention surfaces, queues, and decision records — escalation lands as a durable attention item, not a chat message. Approval is NOT required for every clean closeout; the default RSI conveyor continues unless an explicit human gate is reached.

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。

Feature planning and implementation with 4 adaptive phases (Specify, Design, Tasks, Execute). Auto-sizes depth by complexity. Writes testable requirements in EARS notation, atomic tasks, atomic Conventional Commits, and requirement traceability. Ships deterministic Python validation scripts so structural gates are enforced by code, not memory. Features an independent Verifier (author != verifier, evidence-or-zero), a discrimination sensor, a decision log (STATE.md), a test-coverage matrix, and a self-improving lessons layer. Stack-agnostic and tool-agnostic. Use when (1) planning features, (2) implementing with verification and atomic commits, (3) validating an implementation against a spec. Triggers on "specify feature", "discuss feature", "design", "tasks", "implement", "validate", "verify work", "UAT", "record decision", "pause work", "resume work". Do NOT use for pure architecture decomposition analysis or standalone technical design 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。

Creates structured Request for Comments (RFC) documents for proposing and deciding on significant changes. Use when the user says "write an RFC", "create a proposal", "I need to propose a change", "draft an RFC", "document a decision", or needs stakeholder alignment before making a major technical or process decision. Do NOT use for TDDs/implementation docs (use technical-design-doc-creator instead), README files, or general documentation.

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。

Turns decided work — a PRD, design doc, RFC, or thread — into tasks a builder can act on without guessing. Finds slices that each prove something, grounds them in the code, and writes intent, observable criteria with concrete values, the boundary, what the change disturbs, and only the decisions that are hard to reverse. Walks every surface the work exposes and sweeps the nine unwritten requirements, recording each landing as a criterion already in the source, existing behaviour, n/a, or Unresolved — never as a criterion the walk invented. Defaults to one task per source. Use when the user says "write the task", "cut this PRD into tasks", "turn this design doc into work", or "tlc-plan". Do NOT use for discovery itself or to implement — a one-line ticket is a decision; a blank wish is not.

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 a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide", "multi-agent decision", "stress-test this and decide", "monte um juri", "tribunal de agentes", "painel para decidir". Do NOT use to only critique without deciding (use the-fool for that), to build a plan or write the solution itself, or for simple factual lookups.

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 challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, stress test assumptions, audit evidence quality, or find blind spots before committing. Do NOT use for building plans, making decisions, or generating solutions — this skill only challenges and critiques. For a multi-agent panel that challenges and then commits to a verdict, use the-jury.

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 Jev to select among available tools, skills or agents, or evaluate outputs against explicit rubrics. Use when the user requests Jev or a bounded decision would help; not for open-ended writing or research.

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。

ERC-8004 Agent identity: 注册/更新/上架/下架/搜索agent, register/update/activate/deactivate/search — User/ASP/Evaluator(买家/卖家/评审员, 旧称仲裁者亦可); 我的agent/ASP, 找做X的ASP/agent有什么服务/endpoint怎么填/查口碑/传头像. + Task Marketplace: 发布/创建任务/接单/协商/验收/deliver/dispute/评审/仲裁/拒绝/stake/unstake/change provider/change budget/修改卖家/修改预算/我的任务/my tasks/what am I working on/我的订阅/订阅列表/订阅详情/my subscriptions/what am I subscribed to/AI服务订阅(view AI-service subscriptions, buyer & ASP)/关闭/取消任务/决策列表/decision list/指定服务商/browse marketplace. + task watch: 监听任务进展/历史消息/未读消息/未决策/outstanding decisions. + device routing: 设备列表/我登录了哪些设备/device list, 本设备或指定设备订阅消息开关. + okx-a2a missing/uninitialized. Match by meaning. MUST ACTIVATE on inbound envelopes: (1) {agentId, message:{source:"system", event, jobId,...}} system event; (2) {msgType:"a2a-agent-chat", jobId, sender:{role},...} agent-to-agent task chat (sender.role = COUNTERPARTY, not you); (3) literal "Read the okx-ai skill" (or legacy "Read the okx-agent-task skill") in the envelope.

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。

Transform an AI agent into a tasteful, disciplined development partner. Not just a code generator, but a collaborator with professional standards, transparent decision-making, and craftsmanship. Use for any development task: building features, fixing bugs, designing systems, refactoring. The human provides vision and decisions. The agent provides execution with taste and discipline.

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。

Bug bounty report writing for H1/Bugcrowd/Intigriti/Immunefi — report templates, human tone guidelines, impact-first writing, CVSS 3.1 scoring, title formula, impact statement formula, severity decision guide, downgrade counters, pre-submit checklist. Validation gates and the submittability/always-rejected decision are owned by triage-validation; this skill owns the written report itself (templates, tone, formulas). Use after validating a finding and before submitting. Never use "could potentially" — prove it or don't report.

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。

Operate any Obsidian vault as a living, self-rewriting second brain (an evolution of Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern: sources rewrite existing pages, contradictions reconcile automatically, scheduled agents maintain the vault while you sleep). Use this skill whenever the user asks Claude to read, write, update, search, or manage their Obsidian vault - including saving notes from conversation, creating daily entries, updating kanban boards, logging dev work, managing people notes, capturing decisions, tracking deals, or maintaining any vault structure. Also triggers when the user wants to bootstrap a new vault from scratch, run a vault health check, or drop a _CLAUDE.md into their vault so all Claude surfaces share the same operating rules. Includes a research toolkit (7 commands: /x-read, /x-pulse, /research, /research-deep, /notebooklm, /youtube, /podcast) for AI-powered research via Grok, Perplexity, NotebookLM, YouTube, and podcast feeds - findings save to the vault automatically following the AI-first vault rule. Use proactively whenever the conversation produces information worth preserving (decisions, people met, projects started, tasks completed, lessons learned, research findings).

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。

Frame a new design proposal (RFC-shape) under proposals/ — problem before solution, named beneficiary and observable change, real alternatives, honest drawbacks, and a live open-questions backlog. Read when asked to frame a proposal, write an RFC, propose a design, pitch a change, draft a PRD-style design doc, or open a design proposal for review. Do NOT read to record a decision after it is accepted (use record-a-decision), to write an implementation spec (use write-a-spec), to write a postmortem (use write-a-postmortem), or to review or critique an existing design (use review-a-design).

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 a blameless incident postmortem under postmortems/ following the Google SRE shape — evidence-based timeline, trigger vs root cause vs symptom, contributing factors, what went well, and owned+dated+verifiable action items. Read when asked to write a postmortem, do an incident review, run a root cause analysis, write up the outage, retro on the outage, or when the user says we had an incident and wants it documented. Do NOT read to frame a proposal (use frame-a-proposal), write a spec (use write-a-spec), record a decision (use record-a-decision), or review a design (use review-a-design) — a postmortem documents an incident that already happened, it does not propose, specify, decide, or critique future work.

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。

Promote existing research into a stable-status canonical article under `articles/` in a Knowledge Base project (the `knowledge-base` starter pack). Read when a decision has actually been made and the team wants the source-of-truth written down, or when asked to consolidate, canonicalize, promote research, or supersede an older article. Carries the decision-confirmation gate, the `supersedes:` chain that keeps the evidence trail intact, and the canonical voice. Does not conduct new research — that is the sibling `research-with-sources` skill.

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。

How to work in a Software Lifecycle project (the `software-lifecycle` starter pack): proposals → decisions → specs → postmortems, plus guides. Read when the project has these folders, or when asked how this project is organized. Carries the doc lifecycle, status flows, and per-folder agent behaviors so that guidance does not live inside template bodies or folder descriptions. The five workflows — frame a proposal, write a spec, record a decision, write a postmortem, review a design — each ship as their own sibling skill in this pack. Complements the platform `open-knowledge` skill; does not replace 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。

Present options with trade-offs for informed decision-making — use when choosing between approaches

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。