1,758 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
5-phase planning: PRD analysis, design review, technical decisions, dynamic research team, metrics. Produces a complete implementation plan + ADRs before any code is written.
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。
Holistic, system-aware planning before implementing non-trivial tasks. Use when the task involves new features, architectural decisions, multi-file changes, unclear requirements, or multiple valid approaches. Triggers on "/plan", "plan this", "design an approach", "let's plan first".
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。
This skill encodes Emil Kowalski's philosophy on UI polish, component design, animation decisions, and the invisible details that make software feel great.
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 sending or suppressing any Leader message to Workers, Manager, or Team Admin. Always use this skill for cross-room Matrix messages, @mention decisions, task assignment notifications, structured status reports, completion reports, blocker/revision messages, questions, requester updates, or when deciding whether a same-room reply is enough.
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。
Establish MSBuild/.NET build performance baselines before optimizing. USE FOR: a .NET build or solution that is slow or has build-performance concerns; cold, warm, incremental, or no-op measurements; before/after comparisons; CI build output caching; static graph build decisions; artifacts output; and dependency graph trimming. Start here before build-perf-diagnostics, incremental-build, or build-parallelism. DO NOT USE for webpack, npm, JavaScript bundlers, or other non-MSBuild build systems. For detailed target/task/analyzer bottleneck analysis after baselining, use build-perf-diagnostics.
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。
Addresses all review comments on a PR automatically. Escalates genuine human decisions. Use when asked to /pr-merge-ready, create and babysit a PR, batch-fix PR comments, or address review feedback quickly.
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。
Standard collaboration patterns for all squad agents — worktree awareness, decisions, cross-agent communication
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。
Learning capture system that extracts HIGH/MED/LOW confidence patterns from conversations to prevent repeating mistakes. Use after user corrections ("no", "wrong"), praise ("perfect", "exactly"), or when discovering edge cases. Complements .squad/agents/{agent}/history.md and .squad/decisions.md.
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。
Record final outcomes to history.md, not intermediate requests or reversed decisions
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 the vault using QMD semantic search. Use PROACTIVELY before reading files. Preference order: (1) MCP tools — mcp__qmd__query, mcp__qmd__get, mcp__qmd__multi_get, mcp__qmd__status — if they appear in your tool menu, use them first; (2) CLI `qmd --index <name> ...` as fallback; (3) Grep/Glob only when QMD is not installed. Trigger proactively for past decisions, incidents, people, meetings, architecture, patterns, or any vault content — and after creating/editing notes to check for duplicates and related content.
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。
Turn meeting notes or transcripts into factual summaries, decisions, questions, and action items. Use when a user wants a concise recap or needs explicit owners and deadlines extracted without filling in missing details.
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 user asks what AI-writing flags mean, whether detector output proves AI authorship, or wants a careful interpretation of possible false positives, especially for academic, hiring, publication, disciplinary, or other consequential decisions.
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 an implementation plan as one interactive HTML page - a tree of claims (why › what › how › where), each proved by one exhibit (UI mockup, state machine, call stack, schema or code), with the decisions the user has to make placed on the claim they change. Use when the user types /html-plan, or asks for a plan, RFC or design before building something that touches more than a couple of 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。
Deep-review-first audit for Chinese and English academic papers across LaTeX, Typst, and PDF formats. Use whenever the user wants reviewer-style paper critique, pre-submission readiness checks, pass/fail gate decisions, structured revision roadmaps, or re-audits of revised manuscripts. Trigger even if the user only says "review my paper", "check if this is ready to submit", "audit this PDF", "simulate peer review", "find the biggest problems in this manuscript", or "re-check whether I fixed the review issues". Do not use for direct source editing or compilation-heavy repair; route those to the format-specific writing skills 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。
VS-Enhanced Journal Matcher with Journal Intelligence MCP — Real-time journal data pipeline with checkpoint-based human decisions. Uses OpenAlex + Crossref APIs for live metrics. Light VS applied: Avoids IF-centric recommendations + multi-dimensional matching strategy Use when: selecting target journals, planning submissions, comparing publication options Triggers: journal, submission, impact factor, academic journal, publication, submit
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。
Diverga Dashboard - Live configuration status and feature overview. 24 specialized agents across 9 categories for social science research. VS methodology prevents mode collapse. Human checkpoints enforce human-in-the-loop decisions. Triggers: /diverga, diverga dashboard, diverga status
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。
Conduct rigorous thematic analysis (TA) of qualitative data following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework. Use whenever the user mentions 'thematic analysis', 'TA', 'Braun and Clarke', 'qualitative coding', 'identifying themes', or asks for help analysing interviews, focus groups, open-ended survey responses, or transcripts to identify patterns. Also trigger for questions about inductive vs theoretical coding, semantic vs latent themes, essentialist vs constructionist epistemology, building a thematic map, or writing up a qualitative findings section. Covers all six phases, the four upfront analytic decisions, the 15-point quality checklist, and the five common pitfalls. Produces a Word document write-up and an annotated thematic map. Does NOT cover IPA, grounded theory, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, or narrative analysis — use a different method for those.
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。
Thoroughly verify all code, tables, figures, modeling decisions, and quantitative claims in an academic paper against its source R scripts and output files. Use this skill whenever you need to audit, replicate, or verify an academic research paper - including cross-checking LaTeX tables against R output, validating econometric modeling choices, ensuring sample sizes are consistent, building a verification manifest, and running automated replication tests. Trigger this skill for any mention of: paper verification, replication check, table audit, code-paper consistency, reproducing results, verifying estimates, checking coefficients, or any variant of "does the paper match the 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。
Experimental workflow for reviewing configured repositories' pull requests. Use for manual or scheduled PR triage, approval, or merge decisions.
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 the user explicitly wants autonomous progress without routine clarification stops: "plow ahead", "do not stop", "use your best judgment", "keep going until done", "finish while I am away", "do not ask questions unless truly blocked", or similar. Convert ordinary ambiguity into stated assumptions, proceed through implementation and validation, stop only for true blockers, and end with a clear recap of decisions, changes, verification, and residual risk.
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。
Records an architecture decision as a Nygard/MADR-shaped ADR under decisions/ — capturing the context that forced the choice, the options weighed, the decision itself, and its consequences in both directions, plus the supersedes chain that keeps a decision log honest. Read when asked to record an architecture decision, write an ADR, log the decision we made, document why we chose X over Y, capture this decision for the record, or supersede an old decision with a new one. Do NOT read to frame a proposal or explore an idea not yet decided (frame-a-proposal), to write a spec or implementation plan (write-a-spec), to write an incident postmortem (write-a-postmortem), or to judge whether a design is sound (review-a-design). This skill records a decision already made; it does not make one.
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。
Runs your conversion data through different attribution models side by side — last click, first click, linear, time decay, position based, and data-driven. Shows you how credit shifts between campaigns depending on the model so you can make better budget decisions instead of over-investing in last-touch campaigns. Platform: Google and Meta.
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。