377 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Load when the user asks to be grilled or stress-tested on a plan, OR when starting Tier 0 (Sovereign), Tier 1 (Security), or Tier 2 (Privacy) tasks with underspecified requirements.
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 from the GAO Agile Assessment Guide (GAO-24-105506, 2023). Use for assessing and managing Agile software development in federal programs: the Agile Manifesto and framework family (Scrum, Kanban, XP, SAFe, DA, DSDM, Lean, DevOps); the three adoption perspectives (team dynamics, program operations, organization environment); requirements decomposition (epics, features, user stories, INVEST, MoSCoW, definition of done); Agile-aware federal contracting (FAR, modular contracting, SOO/PWS/SOW, product owner vs. COR); program monitoring and control (WBS, cost, schedule, EVM at the feature level); Agile metrics (velocity, lead/cycle time, CFD, burn charts); and the auditor's key-question bank. Oversight- and acquisition-oriented: it tells you how to *assess and govern* Agile programs, not how to code. Thin on hands-on engineering practice, deep cost/schedule checklists (see gao-cost, gao-schedule), and any non-US-federal context.
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。
Systemic questioning techniques: Circular questions, scaling questions, miracle question, and exception questions for reflection and perspective expansion.
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。
Genogram work: Recognizing and reflecting on family relationship patterns. Multigenerational perspective, genogram symbols, pattern recognition, and resources in family history.
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。
Trabajo con genogramas: Reconocimiento y reflexión sobre los patrones de relaciones familiares. Perspectiva multigeneracional, símbolos del genograma, reconocimiento de patrones y recursos en la historia familiar.
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。
Remote-sensing literature search, citation verification, sensor/platform/dataset query strategy, citation file management (.ris/.bib/.enw conversion), and reference management (BibTeX, related articles, DOI/arXiv lookup) across CrossRef, arXiv, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Semantic Scholar, and domain web sources. Use when the user needs coordinated multi-step literature workflows for remote sensing, Earth observation, geospatial AI, GIScience, photogrammetry, SAR, hyperspectral imaging, LiDAR, satellite missions, benchmark datasets, land-cover mapping, change detection, object detection, segmentation, retrieval, or multimodal remote-sensing foundation models. Also trigger on general literature-search needs during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as searching for papers/literature, doing a literature review, verifying a citation, converting citation files, and Chinese phrasings like 文献检索、查文献、找文献、 文献综述检索、查论文、引文核对、参考文献管理、文献去重.
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。
Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis. Also trigger on general pre-submission review requests during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as getting a mock peer review for any journal, critiquing a draft as a reviewer would, assessing novelty/rigor before submission, and Chinese phrasings like 审稿人视角、模拟审稿、预审、帮我审一下论文、投稿前自审、审稿意见模拟、找论文问题.
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。
Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.
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。
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정.
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 strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints.
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。
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.
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。
Solves UI lock-in. Reverse engineers your existing UI, strips all layout/token decisions, preserves every hook, handler, and API call untouched, then rebuilds the UI from scratch with a fresh design system. Use /ui-restructure to fully redesign, --style apple|linear|minimal|dashboard for named styles, --mode layout|theme|grid for partial rebuilds, --god-mode to redesign from the user's perspective using 100-user mindset simulation and 6 UX principles, --keep-tokens to preserve your token system, --prompt for custom redesigns. Applies mandatory world-class polish: spring motion, 5-state micro-interactions, 8pt spacing grid, WCAG accessibility. Supports Next.js, React, Vue 3, Tailwind, CSS Modules, styled-components, shadcn.
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。
Multi-agent brainstorming: async opinion collision with expert personas. Mixed Codex/Claude Code engine. Use when multiple AI agents need to collaboratively discuss, debate, and converge on solutions through structured dialog. Triggers: brainstorm, multi-perspective discussion, opinion collision, expert debate, war room, collective intelligence, 头脑风暴, 多视角讨论, 集思广益.
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 resumes, cover letters, application packages, and evidence maps from an HR perspective. Use when the user asks for 자기소개서 리뷰, 자소서 검토, HR 검토, 제출 전 점검, unsupported-claim detection, company-name residue checks, or risk-focused revision advice before applying.
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。
Routes general Convex requests to the right project skill. Use when the user asks which Convex skill to use or gives an underspecified Convex app 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。
Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
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: analysing a project's architecture, structure, and infrastructure health from the System perspective.
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。
Multi-agent orchestration patterns. Use when multiple independent tasks can run with different domain expertise or when comprehensive analysis requires multiple perspectives.
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。
Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.
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。
Generate the success criteria for a task or question, then review work against them. Given a task, goal, or open-ended question, decompose it into scenarios, evaluation perspectives, and fine-grained weighted YES/NO criteria using the Recursive Expansion Tree (RET) method; if work is supplied, score it criterion-by-criterion and surface what is missing or could be better. Use when asked to self-review or check your own work, judge whether a task is done well or completely, build a definition-of-done or completeness checklist, create an evaluation rubric or grading criteria, score or grade answers to a question, set up an LLM-as-judge rubric, or when the user mentions self-review, completeness check, success criteria, evaluation criteria, scoring rubric, Qworld, or the RET algorithm.
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。
Orchestrates group discussions between installed BMAD agents, enabling natural multi-agent conversations where each agent is a real subagent with independent thinking. Use when user requests party mode, wants multiple agent perspectives, group discussion, roundtable, or multi-agent conversation about their project.
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。
Rewrite a rough request into a sharp, structured prompt before acting on it. Use when the user says "reprompt this", "reprompt", "improve this prompt", "make this prompt better", "structure this request", or hands you a vague/underspecified ask you should sharpen first. Complements the automatic per-turn sharpener (the UserPromptSubmit hook) for explicit, heavier rewrites. Personalizes from ~/.stellar-build/profile.md when present.
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。
Debate multi-agente: 2-4 perspectivas (PM, Arquiteto, QA, Security) debatem decisao tecnica. Output: decisao + rationale + dissenting opinions → ADR. Inspirado no Party Mode do BMAD-METHOD.
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。