5,641 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Calls DNA methylation from Oxford Nanopore sequencing data using signal-level analysis. Use when detecting 5mC or 6mA modifications directly from nanopore reads without bisulfite conversion.
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。
Estimate causal effects between exposures and outcomes using genetic variants as instrumental variables with TwoSampleMR. Implements IVW, MR-Egger, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO methods for robust causal inference from GWAS summary statistics. Use when testing whether an exposure causally affects an outcome using genetic instruments.
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。
Apply Michael Feathers-inspired legacy-code rules when changing hard-to-test code safely with characterization tests, seams, sprout methods, or wrap methods.
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。
Quantifies crypto market regime health using free, keyless public data (CoinGecko + Binance funding). Generates a 0-100 composite score across 6 components (100 = risk-on) with a posture recommendation. No API key required. Use when user asks about crypto market conditions, whether it's alt season, BTC dominance, crypto risk-on vs risk-off, funding rates, or whether crypto exposure should be increased or reduced.
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。
Judge whether a market FAILED to react to news favorable to a crowded speculative position — step 2 of Jason Shapiro's COT contrarian process. Consumes a cot-contrarian-detector report (or an explicit direction) plus a Claude-curated events JSON, fetches the underlying price series with a documented fallback chain, and produces a fail-closed CONFIRMED / NOT_CONFIRMED / INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE verdict using a statistically validated drift-significance test (not a naive failure-ratio, which false-confirms on pure noise). Generic beyond COT — reusable for PEAD and macro-crowding news-failure checks. Use when the user asks to check news-failure confirmation, whether a crowded market "shrugged off" good/bad news, or wants to run Shapiro step 2 on a CROWDED_LONG/CROWDED_SHORT market.
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 Follow-Through Day (FTD) signals for market bottom confirmation using William O'Neil's methodology. Dual-index tracking (S&P 500 + NASDAQ) with state machine for rally attempt, FTD qualification, and post-FTD health monitoring. Use when user asks about market bottom signals, follow-through days, rally attempts, re-entry timing after corrections, or whether it's safe to increase equity exposure. Complementary to market-top-detector (defensive) - this skill is offensive (bottom confirmation).
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。
Separate a strategy return series into declared baseline exposure and residual edge with returns-based OLS attribution, HAC inference, rolling stability, alternate-baseline sensitivity, and regime breakdowns. Use when evaluating whether backtest, out-of-sample, or live returns contain independent alpha beyond market, equal-weight, momentum, sector, or user-supplied factor returns; when explaining whether a drawdown came from baseline exposure or strategy-specific behavior; or when a strategy needs an attribution quality gate after backtesting. Do not use for holdings-based Brinson attribution, feature-level Shapley explanations, or analysis from summary metrics without a dated return series.
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。
Design first-click and click tests for findability and navigation. Use when testing whether people can locate something. For full task-based observation, use `test-scenario`.
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。
Guides the end-to-end AWS resilience lifecycle integrating Resilience Hub v2, Fault Injection Service, and Application Recovery Controller. Covers the Define → Test → Operate workflow: from policy creation through failure mode assessment, to FIS experiment validation, to ARC operational controls. Applicable when the user wants a complete resilience strategy, needs to connect findings to experiments to controls, or is planning a resilience program. Also applicable for the meta question of whether marking NGRH findings as resolved is enough, whether they are "done" after resolving findings, or how to validate findings before resolving them. Not applicable for resolving or remediating a specific individual finding (see resilience-hub-failure-mode-assessment), or when a single service is explicitly named (e.g. "what FIS experiment should I 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。
Comprehensive OSINT methodology for external red-team operations and authorized attack-surface assessments. Covers the 6-stage recon pipeline (seed → asset expansion → enrichment → exposure analysis → convergence → operator-armed active validation) with connector-resilience and stage-vs-gating discipline, asset-graph discipline, severity rubric, confidence upgrade workflows, time budgeting, identity-fabric mapping, breach×identity correlation with per-person identity dossiers, detectability tagging, detection-aware probing, WAF/CDN bypass, vulnerability prioritization, phishing infrastructure planning, bug bounty submission, and client deliverable templates. Use when planning or executing reconnaissance against authorized targets, mapping an organization's external attack surface, investigating a person/entity, or producing client deliverables.
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 evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response 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。
Reconnaissance and methodology playbook. Use when mapping assets, discovering endpoints, fingerprinting technology, and building a structured testing plan for a new 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。
Safely change and test untested codebases using Feathers' "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". Use when the user mentions "legacy code", "no tests", "untested codebase", "how do I test this", "seams", "characterization tests", "golden master", "sprout method", "afraid to change this code", "monster method", "dependency breaking", or "inherited a messy codebase". Also trigger when changing code without tests safely, getting a class under test when constructors, statics, or singletons block it, adding features to tangled modules, or planning incremental test coverage for an old codebase. Covers the legacy-code change algorithm, seams, characterization tests, sprout/wrap, and dependency-breaking techniques. For refactoring code that already has tests, see refactoring-patterns. For day-to-day code quality, see clean-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。
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when cleaning up legacy code, preparing code for new features by restructuring, or identifying which transformation fits a specific code smell. Covers smell-driven refactoring, safe transformation sequences, and testing guards. For code-quality foundations, see clean-code. For managing complexity, see software-design-philosophy.
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。
Apply lean thinking to UX: hypothesis-driven design, collaborative sketching, and rapid experiments instead of heavy deliverables. Use when the user mentions "Lean UX", "design hypothesis", "outcome over output", "design studio method", "assumption mapping", "lightweight research", "too much design documentation", or "get the team designing together". Also trigger when reducing design-documentation overhead, getting cross-functional teams to co-design, or running fast usability experiments. Covers hypothesis statements, MVPs for UX, and cross-functional collaboration. For Build-Measure-Learn, see lean-startup. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics.
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。
Guided journey from a leaking conversion flow - landing page, signup, checkout, or in-app onboarding - to a measured, tested funnel. Orchestrates six skills phase by phase - lean-analytics, cro-methodology, storybrand-messaging, hundred-million-offers, influence-psychology, design-everyday-things - each phase carries its full method inline so it runs standalone, asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (FUNNEL.md, METRICS.md, EXPERIMENTS.md, CONVERSION-OPTIMIZATION-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to raise conversion on a specific flow, fix checkout or signup abandonment, diagnose onboarding drop-off, or says 'people start but never finish'. With no site yet, use create-website; for a whole-site look, message, and speed audit, improve-website; if the flow converts but needs traffic, grow-website; for in-product engagement and retention, improve-app. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.
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。
Add another file (resource) to an EXISTING dataset in a PortalJS portal — a data dictionary, methodology, or an additional data file. Turns a single-file dataset into a multi-resource one; the showcase renders a section per resource. Use when a dataset needs a second file, such as a data dictionary, methodology doc, or an additional period's data.
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。
OpenChatCut product knowledge — UI layout, editor features, and how generation providers are configured. Use when the user asks about the product interface, how to use a feature, where to find something, or needs GUI guidance for something the agent cannot do directly. Also use as fallback when a task fails and the user needs to complete it manually in the UI. NOT for live project-state queries ("where are my folders?", "what's on my timeline?", "where is clip X?") — those are answered by `read_project`, not by this skill.
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。
Discuss a domain with the user, research it from real sources, then generate a trusted skill bundle for it - a step-by-step workflow with a flowchart, a domain adapter, a trap fixture, and a smoke eval. Use when the user says "/fable-domain SECTOR", "make a skill for DOMAIN", "add a domain to the fable method", or "give a lesser model Fable's workflow for DOMAIN". The bundle is the deliverable; a workflow without its flowchart, sources, and trap is not done.
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。
End-to-end orchestrated workflow that runs a task the way Fable ran sessions - parallel evidence subagents, one committed plan, surgical execution with an intent gate, adversarial verification agents, honest outcome-first report. Use for non-trivial multi-step tasks when the user says "/fable-loop", "run the fable loop", or "do this the way Fable would". For the rules alone without orchestration, use fable-method; for large multi-phase projects, prefer the GSD workflow and use this inside phases.
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。
Adversarial verification of finished work. Treats any "done" as a set of claims, then re-runs the claimed verifications, diffs what actually changed, detects weakened tests and false completion claims, and delivers an evidence-based verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS / REFUTED). Use after any agent or model claims work is complete - "/fable-judge", "judge this work", "verify what it did", "did that actually work?". Also runs the fable-method trap suite against a skill or model via "/fable-judge suite 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。
End-to-end methodology for reproducing AND patching publicly disclosed, already-fixed vulnerabilities: sourcing the advisory and the fix commit, reading the patch diff, rebuilding a pinned offline lab, building a vulnerable-vs-patched contrast harness with proper controls, minimizing the trigger, designing and validating the fix, and writing it up as a blog post or whitepaper. Use this skill whenever the user wants to reproduce, demonstrate, understand, teach, or write about a known vulnerability or security incident: "reproduce this CVE", "build a repro for", "how did EchoLeak / Log4Shell / the postmark-mcp package actually work", "show me how this exploit worked", "write a blog post about this vulnerability", "set up a lab for CVE-XXXX", "pull the NVD/CVE/OSV details", or "make a PoC I can publish". Use it just as eagerly for the patching half: "how should this be fixed", "is this patch correct", "what would have caught this", "review this security fix", "write a regression test for this CVE", "how do I backport this", or "what's the right fix for this bug class" - even when the user never says the word "reproduce". Reach for it on vague asks like "help me understand this security advisory", "I want to write about this incident", or "can we test whether we were vulnerable" when a disclosed vulnerability is in play. This skill only handles ALREADY-PATCHED, publicly disclosed issues and refuses zero-day discovery, live targets, and weaponization.
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。
Judges whether material for children under six is developmentally plausible — what is typical at each age, why pre-K is not a thinner kindergarten, and which frameworks apply where Common Core does not. Use this to design or review pre-K material, decide whether a task is reasonable for an age, choose the right framework for a pre-K alignment claim, or push back on material that pushes school-age expectations downward.
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。
Makes technical debt visible and decidable — distinguishing real debt from mess, quantifying its cost, and arguing for remediation in business terms. Use this to assess and prioritize debt, decide whether to fix or live with something, justify remediation work to non-engineers, or plan a migration off a system nobody wants to touch.
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。