「agent-skills」の検索結果

Builds a DRAFT weighted supplier evaluation matrix from supplier responses and the panel's agreed criteria, weights and scale: a provisional score per cell with the quoted evidence and anchor behind it, a register of every missing or partial answer, and calibration and sensitivity flags. Provisional for panel moderation; never recommends, awards or disqualifies. Use when the user asks to score, weight or rank supplier, bid or tender responses against agreed criteria, for example "score these bids", "build the evaluation matrix", "weight the tender responses" or "rank the suppliers against our criteria". Do not use for a side-by-side comparison without scores, use rfp-comparison-pack instead; for writing the criteria, use rfp-requirements-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-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。

Turns reported data problems (messages, tickets, meeting notes, complaints) into one DRAFT issue log: one row per issue with the symptom as reported, dataset and fields named, reproduction steps, affected reports, first seen date, reporters, a suggested owner, and blank severity, root cause and status cells for the owner. Never asserts a root cause, severity or fix. Use when the user asks to "log these data issues", "turn these complaints about the numbers into an issue list", "build the data quality backlog", "which reports are hit by this data problem" or "write up the reproduction steps for this data bug". Do not use for exploring or profiling a dataset, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for an IT incident write-up, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for tracking fix actions once assigned, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。

Proposes the piping content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: line inventory with off-page continuity and required ancillary lines, line identification elements per the project line numbering procedure, connection items at nozzles matched to a quoted schedule, per quoted standards, specification break questions and observations. Every proposal cites its source and revision; no source, no proposal; never sizes a line or selects a class. Use when the user asks to "run the piping enrichment", "start the discipline enrichment", "list the lines the P&ID adds to this PFD" or "fill the line identifiers from the numbering procedure" after gate G2. Do not use for instruments, loops or instrument tags, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use before gate G2, use process-model-check. 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 Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-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。

Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. 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 a DRAFT interface register between disciplines or parties from meeting notes, action lists and drawings or document lists: one row per interface with the requesting and providing party, the information needed, the related document number, the need-by date with its source, the status as minuted and a quoted source, plus UNKNOWN and questions where the notes are silent. Never sets a date, rates priority, assigns ownership beyond what the notes state or closes an interface. Use when the user asks to "build an interface register from these minutes", "list the interfaces between piping and civil", "who owes what to whom on this package", "update the interface register from this week's meeting" or "turn these action items into an interface list". Do not use for recording a design or document change raised in a meeting, use management-of-change-intake 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 Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-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 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。

Sweeps the last 24 hours of email, chat messages and meeting transcripts for commitments in both directions, what the user promised others and what others promised the user, reconciles them against a running commitments ledger (open, done, overdue), lists overdue items first and returns the updated ledger plus a proposed task list as Markdown for the user to save. Use when the user asks to "check my commitments", "what did I promise", "what am I owed", "did anything slip" or "run the commitment sweep". Do not use for a general morning summary of mail, calendar and mentions, use custom-daily-brief 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。

Reads an accounts payable exception list (mismatches, possible duplicates, missing or exhausted purchase orders, missing receipts, vendor or bank detail differences) with any invoice, purchase order and receipt data supplied, and returns a DRAFT action sheet: per line, the exception as stated, the facts as read, the difference where both sides exist, one proposed next action for the accounts payable clerk to perform, who or what it needs, and a draft query, with UNKNOWN wherever the data is silent. Use when the user asks to "review these invoice exceptions", "work through the AP exception queue", "what should I do with these blocked invoices", "propose next steps for the three-way match failures" or "sort out the duplicate and missing PO invoices". Do not use for a purchase order log screened for anomalies, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for an expense claim against policy, use expense-policy-precheck. 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。

Sorts a personal inbox backlog into five buckets (needs-reply-today, needs-reply-this-week, waiting-on-others, FYI, noise), writes DRAFT reply text for the messages that need an answer (up to 10 per run), and returns a dated triage report as one Markdown document. Lists moves or archives only as proposals for the user to perform, and only where a rule the user supplied says so; the agent changes nothing in the mailbox. Use when the user asks to "triage my inbox", "sort my mail", "clean up my inbox", "catch up after leave" or "what needs a reply today or this week". Do not use for a shared support queue or helpdesk export, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for what the user promised or is owed, use commitment-catcher; for one named thread, answer directly. 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。

Reads a process flow diagram (image, PDF or native export) with its job header and returns a provenance-tagged extraction register: equipment, streams, tags, connectivity, instruments already shown, notes and legends, connectivity findings and an explicit UNKNOWN list, then holds at gate G1. Extracts and records only; never enriches, tags or proposes. Use when the user asks to "start a PFD to P&ID job", "read in the attached PFD", "extract the equipment and streams from this PFD" or "read this PFD into a register". Do not use for checking the model, use process-model-check instead; do not use to propose lines, instruments or tags, use piping-enrichment or instrumentation-and-control-enrichment after gate G2. 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。

Checks a master document register extract for gaps and returns a DRAFT question list for document control: missing or out-of-sequence revisions, overdue or slipping deliverables, numbering that breaks the project convention, duplicates and incomplete rows, each with row, test and quoted evidence. Never edits the register, re-baselines a date or marks a deliverable complete. Use when the user asks to "check the MDR", "find the gaps in the deliverables list" or "prepare questions on the drawing register". Do not use for drafting a transmittal from a document list, use transmittal-drafter 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。

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。

Turns one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, use incident-postmortem-drafter. 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。

Reads a cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around the change, use frontline-skeptic-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。

Runs twice in a PFD to P&ID job. Part 1, before gate G3, validates the discipline proposals for provenance, UNKNOWN handling, conflicts, prohibited content and cross-section consistency and returns results and blocking items. Part 2, before gate G5, assembles the review package, with job header, gate record, every register and proposal, consolidated UNKNOWN list, feedback log and closing statement. Use when the user asks to "validate the enrichment", "run validation before G3", "assemble the review package" or "build the G5 package". Do not use for the readiness map, use pid-tool-readiness-mapping instead; do not use to produce a missing discipline section, use the discipline skill that owns it. 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。