380 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Analyzes PHP codebase for SOLID principle violations. Detects God classes (SRP), type switches (OCP), broken contracts (LSP), fat interfaces (ISP), and concrete dependencies (DIP). Generates actionable reports with severity levels and remediation recommendations.
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。
Detects leaky abstractions in PHP code. Identifies implementation details exposed in interfaces, concrete returns from abstract methods, framework leakage into domain, and infrastructure concerns in application layer.
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。
A hard-edged writing style contract for timeless, forceful English prose without modern AI tics. Use when users ask for prose or rewrites that must be clean, exact, concrete, and free of AI cadence, filler, or therapeutic tone.
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 this skill when building or debugging table usage with nuxt-ui-tools as a package consumer. Covers defineTableSchema, useTable, DataList, granular composition, columns, filters, sorting, offset or cursor loading, layouts, actions, selection, context, and URL state with concrete examples.
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 decision-making framework for technical proposals and trade-off analysis. When the user faces a choice between multiple approaches (architecture decisions, tool selection, refactoring strategies, migration paths), this skill produces a 1-3-1 format: one clear problem statement, three distinct options with pros/cons, and one concrete recommendation with definition of done and implementation plan. Use when the user asks for a "1-3-1", says "give me options", or needs help choosing between competing 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。
Run a two-pass, multidisciplinary code audit led by a tie-breaker lead, combining security, performance, UX, DX, and edge-case analysis into one prioritized report with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to audit code, perform a deep review, stress-test a codebase, or produce a risk-ranked remediation plan across backend, frontend, APIs, infra scripts, and product flows.
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 one bounded adversarial pass when the user explicitly requests a report-style stress test or ROSE identifies a concrete material loophole in an existing strategy, spec, plan, review, or claim; do not trigger for an interactive grill/frontier interview or merely before write-back, implementation, reconciliation, or completion.
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。
Prepare an explicit production launch, staged rollout, launch-monitoring, or rollback plan; do not trigger from AILI SHIP, implementation completion, packaging, review, or release wording that lacks a concrete launch/rollout target.
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 or materially revise a repository-local test plan, QA plan, acceptance matrix, or regression checklist on explicit request or when one concrete testability gap blocks formal DEFINE; do not trigger for ordinary implementation, test execution, TDD, review, or completion claims.
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。
Perform a bounded security design/hardening pass for explicit security or threat-model intent, or a concrete auth/authorization/secret/untrusted-input/file-upload/sensitive-data risk; do not trigger for every input, data store, third-party call, implementation, review, or release.
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 a concrete requirements decision, create one bounded static interview packet, or run an explicitly user-invoked frontier batch over a plan, decision, or idea; trigger on explicit grill/interview/refinement intent or a named material ambiguity, not on ordinary planning, implementation, research, test-plan, report-style review, or BUILD 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。
Prefer a fresh matching specialist for a clear bounded non-trivial package when current capabilities and permissions permit it; use direct ROSE work only for accepted direct-work exceptions or a concrete block.
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 one bounded evidence-grounded code review when the user explicitly requests review or ROSE names a concrete unresolved correctness/quality risk; do not trigger automatically after implementation, before every merge, for every bug fix/refactor, or as a completion gate.
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。
Repair one concrete reproducible build, typecheck, lint, test, packaging, or CI failure with a bounded root-cause-first loop; do not trigger for runtime bugs without a failing gate, broad test strategy, dependency/toolchain migration, or generic implementation.
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。
Configure or modify concrete CI/CD pipelines, jobs, quality gates, test runners, or deployment automation; do not trigger merely because an existing CI gate failed or ordinary source code needs repair.
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。
Hunting skill for ssrf vulnerabilities. Built from 15 public bug bounty reports including AWS metadata SSRF (HackerOne $25k Analytics PDF, Shopify Exchange $25k, Capital One 106M-record breach, Dropbox/HelloSign $4,913), GCP metadata SSRF (Snapchat $4k), Azure IMDS SSRF (Azure DevOps $15k chain, ChatGPT Custom Actions MSRC), DNS rebinding SSRF (Concrete CMS, GitLab UrlBlocker), gopher-protocol-to-Redis-RCE (Yahoo Mail $15k), link-preview SSRF (Reddit Matrix $6k), and headless-browser PDF-generator SSRF chains. Use when hunting SSRF on any target — OOB Collaborator confirmation mandatory for blind cases.
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。
Manages agent isolation levels and resource boundaries. Specifies concrete controls and the evidence needed to assess their boundaries. Activate on 'isolation level', 'agent isolation', 'resource boundaries', 'sandboxing', 'agent containment'. NOT for permission validation (use dag-permission-validator) or runtime enforcement (use dag-scope-enforcer).
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。
Audits an Articles of Agreement contract — the daemon-witnessed agreement every official Port Daddy agent signs covering registration, transcript reporting, tool-use gating, file claims, parley conduct, budget limits, and operator control — against the enforcement-beats-hope bar: a clause counts as safe only when it resolves to a concrete, daemon-observable mechanism with a defined denial shape, never a promise the agent might honor. Use when drafting a new agent's Articles, reviewing a compliance-level (C0-C6) claim, deciding whether a clause is genuinely enforced or merely documented, or auditing whether an agent's claimed identity can be trusted. NOT for securing the inbound event-to-spawn path (fleet-event-spawn-trust), designing the relay's transport PKI and signing keys (pd-relay-zero-trust), or tracking an agent's identity and reputation across its whole lifetime after it signs (agent-identity-continuity-reputation).
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。
Track the full Toulmin epistemic ancestry of every claim produced by a multi-agent swarm. Each agent output is tagged with an argument chain (claim / data / warrant / relationship) derived from SwarmTracer spans and LineageEdge records, so operators can zoom into any sub-claim and see precisely which agents asserted it, what triggered each assertion, and how contradictions propagated or were synthesised away. The SwarmTracer pattern — wrapping the SwarmAgentExecutor to capture spans, record messages, and build a lineage graph — is the concrete runtime substrate. Argumentative lineage lifts that graph into the Toulmin vocabulary so reasoning provenance is both machine-queryable and human-interpretable.
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。
Implement an executable BDI agent cycle with events, context-guarded plans, intention stacks, selection functions, and belief revision. Use when designing or debugging AgentSpeak-style runtimes or concrete BDI program semantics. NOT for high-level BDI adoption, organizational modeling, norms, or hypertree team planning.
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。