411 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use for analytical thinking, or when a question needs breaking down and evidence: "why did metric X drop?", "what drives this?", "break this down", "what data do we need?". Builds a tree, hypotheses and evidence, ends with an answer and key uncertainty. Skip for quick verdicts.
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-dive framework for analyzing crypto tokens — market data, liquidity health, tokenomics, unlock schedules, and risk assessment. Combines on-chain data, API queries, and multi-source validation to generate actionable investment verdicts.
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。
Structured, risk-aware code review of a GitHub pull request using the gh CLI, with diff triage, unresolved-thread suppression, and severity-grouped findings ending in an approve/request-changes verdict.
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。
Read-only reviewer for agent-flow. Judges one diff against the acceptance criteria, AGENTS.md rules, protected paths and risk boundaries; returns a JSON verdict with line-anchored findings. Use when launched with AGENT_FLOW_ROLE=reviewer or asked for an agent-flow review of a diff.
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 asks to verify a story or ticket implementation against its spec - per-AC verdicts, code reuse and design conformance, dead code, then adversarial maintainer verification. Requires the qa/review agent roles registered by scripts/install-codex.sh. Keywords: story QA, acceptance criteria, spec conformance, AC coverage, QA this branch, verify story.
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 verifying a story or ticket implementation against its spec and acceptance criteria - per-AC verdicts with file:line evidence and proving tests, code reuse and design conformance, dead code, stale docs, comment discipline. Finds the spec from an explicit path, the ticket key in the branch name, or plan files - and asks rather than guessing. For defect-hunting code review use dotnet-techne-code-review instead. Keywords: story QA, acceptance criteria, spec conformance, AC coverage, definition of done, dead code check, reuse check, comment check, verify story, QA this branch.
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 gate for correctness, reuse, and simplification. Produces a structured verdict with actionable findings. Trigger on any PR before merge, or on any agent-generated code before it is committed.
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 rule set is over the Augment budget, when a new rule would breach it, or when asked to audit / merge / prune rules — runs the audit pipeline and proposes a verdict per rule.
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 surfacing and prioritising risk before commit — blast-radius framing, mitigations, residual-risk verdict — even if the user just says 'what could go wrong here?'.
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 to run a depth-bounded self-correction loop (attempt → critic verdict → re-attempt) as a tunable test-time compute knob — a do-and-judge specialisation, default off, capability-gated.
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 to consolidate multiple already-run judge verdicts into one report — consensus, conflicts, must-fix/should-fix with per-judge provenance. Consume-only, no opaque score, never auto-gates.
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 comparing this package to a peer / competitor — ours-vs-theirs verdict table, axis selection, adoption queue. Triggers on 'how do we compare to X', 'should we adopt their pattern'.
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。
Run on an existing project to decide KEEP / MERGE / ARCHIVE — never limbo. Forces a call on tools that already exist and may have stopped earning their keep. Trigger on "is this still worth keeping", "audit this repo", "tech-debt cleanup", "sweep the folder", "what's dead here", or any signal that something hasn't been touched in months. Judged from both the agent lens (still legible, still drivable, still safe) and the human lens (do I still reach for it, does it nag). Includes a non-negotiable footgun check for stale pipelines that can overwrite live data. Outputs a backed AUDIT.md and a one-line verdict note in the project root docs. Do NOT load for greenfield projects (use new-project-gate), one-off bug fixes, or when the answer is already obvious.
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。
Run before building anything new — a pre-build gate that decides whether an idea deserves its own tool, judged from both the agent lens (legible, drivable, automatable) and the human lens (will I touch it, do I want to maintain it). Trigger on "should I build X", "starting a new project / app / tool / repo", "is this worth making", "want to spin up", or any new-build intent — even if the word "checklist" never appears. Outputs a backed GATE.md with checkmarks and a one-line verdict note in the project root docs. Do NOT load for small config tweaks, one-off scripts, bug fixes on existing things, or anything that is clearly a feature of something you already run.
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。
Phase 4 Turn 2 of disease-market-sizing-orchestration (A6' upgrade). Audits compose output via Cite-or-Block strict — every anchor must reverse-resolve to an actual file in sources/, every fact claim must have an anchor. Returns verdict (ok/blocked) + violations list. Use AFTER cite-bound-content-generator (Turn 1), BEFORE report-bundle-builder (phase 5).
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。
Pressure-test startup ideas against real user pain, current behavior, competitors, first-customer access, MVP scope, founder-market fit, and a two-week launch test. Produces a direct strong, weak, or pivot verdict.
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 automated malware submission and analysis pipeline that collects suspicious files from endpoints and email gateways, submits them to sandbox environments and multi-engine scanners, and generates verdicts with IOCs for SIEM integration. Use when SOC teams need to scale malware analysis beyond manual sandbox submissions for high-volume alert triage.
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。
Post-fix verification — re-scan the repo, gate on `--exploits weaponized --severity high`, recheck the specific CVE against the new installed version, write the verdict to `.vulnetix/memory.yaml`. Use when confirming a fix landed, validating a version bump did not introduce regressions, or producing a clean-scan attestation for compliance.
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。
Verify a tested web agent's real behavior from its recorded Pi or Codex session and selected screenshots before scoring. The judge prompt provides absolute artifact paths; use targeted queries to compare actual outputs, errors, and the final answer with the recorded behavior, then return only the verdict JSON. Only for ego-bench judging—never to drive a browser or rerun the agent.
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。
Mitigate incidental code complexity when control flow is tangled, nesting is deep, names are hard to parse, or reasoning requires cross-file hops. Use when a review stalls on readability, you need an analysis-first refactor plan before edits, or you want essential-vs-incidental verdicts, ranked simplification steps, a small structural sketch, and a TRACE assessment (analysis-only; no edits).
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 sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-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。
Reviews one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. 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。
Synthesises training survey responses and manager notes into a DRAFT training needs report by role: coded needs with record counts per role (n of N), the evidence type behind each count, anonymised quotes cited to record codes, disagreements between what staff report and what managers observe, gaps where a role is under-represented or a required skill has no evidence, and follow-up questions to settle before any course is designed. Never rates an individual, ranks a team or turns a count into a competence verdict. Use when the user asks to "analyse this training survey", "what training do our teams need", "summarise the manager feedback on skills gaps", "build a training needs analysis by role" or "which roles have the biggest skill gaps". Do not use for turning an agreed need into a course, use course-outline-builder instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis. 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 Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-reviewer 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。