「question」の検索結果

Reads two or more supplier, bid or tender responses against a requirements list and returns a DRAFT comparison pack: a requirement-by-supplier matrix, gaps per supplier, clarification questions and neutral observations, for an evaluation panel. Never scores, weights, ranks or recommends a winner; the award stays with the panel. Use when the user asks to "compare these bids", "matrix the tender responses against our requirements", "collate the RFQ replies", "show me where each supplier falls short" or "draft clarification questions for the bidders". Do not use for scoring or weighting against agreed criteria, use supplier-evaluation-matrix instead, or for writing the requirements, 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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。

Builds a DRAFT structured interview scorecard from a job description: five to eight competencies traced to it, past-behaviour and situational evidence questions with probes, four-level rating anchors written as observable behaviours, a blank scoring sheet, a panel plan and the items the hiring manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an interview scorecard for this job description", "write competency questions for this role", "draft the interview guide for the panel", "set up a rating scale for the interviewers", "put together a structured interview kit" or "create a hiring rubric from the JD". Do not use for writing or fixing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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 a business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them 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 a project or processing description and returns a DRAFT data protection impact assessment pack: processing description, necessity and proportionality questions, a risk table with blank rating cells, mitigations to consider and open questions. Never rates risk, determines the lawful basis or judges adequacy; the DPO assesses and signs. Works from descriptions, never personal data. Use when the user asks to "start a DPIA for the new monitoring tool", "draft a data protection impact assessment", "scaffold a DPIA from this processing description" or "what would the DPO need for a DPIA on this". Do not use for redacting or de-identifying a document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-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。

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, 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。

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。

Send one research question to as many independent LLMs as possible at once, each in its strongest reasoning mode with proof of that mode, then synthesize. Floor of 3 models, quorum of 4; late answers are collected later. Use for high-stakes questions where one model's view is not enough. Triggers: /hyper, hyper research, ask every LLM, max fan-out research.

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。

Spar with the founder as a synthetic cofounder on business questions (revenue, funnel, pricing, fundraising, debt, hiring, runway) with numbered objections and no flattery, arguing to consensus instead of agreeing. Not a coach and not a chatbot. Triggers: "/cofounder", or any strategic business question.

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。

Ensure design docs explicitly capture risks, assumptions, and open questions with owners, deadlines, and mitigation plans.

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。

リファクタリングを「更新されたチームの理解と、コードが表現する過去の理解の差分同期」と捉え、今回得た新知識（要求・ドメイン知識・制約）が naming と responsibility へ反映されているか、boundary が現在の understanding を表現しているか、diff の削除行やコメントに現れる過去の design history と constraint を失っていないかを diff-time で確認する。Knowledge Delta の signal は diff（追加/削除された hunk・コメント・ADR 参照）を一次情報とし、PR 本文が供給されるときは補助に用い、不確実なら question に留める。ドメイン用語の一貫性は ubiquitous-language-naming、集約/コンテキスト境界の設計判断は bounded-context-language、投機的抽象化・caller special-case は altitude-generalization、スコープ逸脱/前提破壊は fix-scope-integrity、振る舞い変更と構造変更の分離は behavior-structure-separation、完了主張の反証は refactor-claim-audit へ委譲する

指摘対応の反復（レビューコメント→修正→再レビュー）で、個別には正しい修正の蓄積が当初スコープを逸脱した（scope creep）、または成立済みの前提（"動いていた"状態）を破壊した（premise break）連鎖を diff-time で検出する。技術的正しさとスコープ整合性を別軸で評価し、report-only で finding/question のみ出力する。1コメント単位のトリアージ・構造変更後の caller 残骸・plan 前提解消は隣接 skill へ委譲する

リファクタリング（構造変更）と機能変更（behavior change）が同一 diff に混在していないかを識別し、structural change に対する external behavior preservation の証拠（テスト・型・静的解析）が揃っているかを diff-time で確認する。証拠不足のときは Characterization Test 追加を促すか question とする。DTO/公開 API の破壊的変更検出は api-compatibility、完了主張の反証や抽出リファクタの性能特性退行は refactor-claim-audit、新知識の命名・責務・境界への反映は knowledge-to-code-alignment、投機的抽象化・スコープ逸脱は altitude-generalization / fix-scope-integrity へ委譲する

Multi-source research synthesizer. Takes a question, runs 3-5 parallel web searches with varied phrasings, deduplicates, and returns a cited, concise answer. For Hebrew questions, searches in both Hebrew and English. Output is always under ~400 words.

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。

Stop and check this skill before finishing any reply to a question about how to use Claude or a Claude product — it recommends matching courses, tutorials, and use cases from Claude Academy (academy.claude.com), Anthropic's learning hub. Trigger on: "how do I", "how can I", "getting started with", "what can Claude do", "teach me", "learn to use"; questions about artifacts, projects, skills, plugins, connectors, MCP; requests about rolling Claude out to a team, class, or organization; and any ask for training materials, onboarding content, or learning resources. Use it when the user is learning how to use a feature or product — not when they are mid-task and just want the task done. This skill composes with other skills: after consulting product documentation to answer how a Claude feature works, also check here for a matching course or tutorial — a docs-grounded answer and an Academy recommendation belong together. Only recommend on a strong match; never invent Academy content.

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。

Answer repository questions grounded entirely in source code evidence. Use when user asks a question about the codebase, user wants to understand a specific file, function, or component, or user asks "how does X work" or "where is Y defined".

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。

Alternative Slowbar coffee intelligence — scientific analysis from seed to cup using First Principle + System Thinking. Covers: varieties, terroir, cultivation, disease diagnosis, processing, roasting physics/chemistry, extraction science, brewing, business strategy, storytelling. ALWAYS trigger for coffee-related questions requiring scientific depth. DO NOT trigger for simple recipes or general food questions. Style: science-driven, farmer-first, quality-obsessed.

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 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge 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。

One-question-at-a-time design interrogation. Use when: 'grill me', 'interrogate this', 'one question at a time', 'brainstorm', 'let's brainstorm', 'let's discuss', or design review start. Produces ADRs and glossary as decisions settle. Do not use for settled designs — load architecture-mode instead.

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。

Improve, rewrite, and explain workplace English for an English-as-a-second-language professional in Australia. Use when the user asks to polish, fix, rewrite, improve, or check work emails, Slack or Teams messages, follow-ups, replies to managers or stakeholders, technical explanations, status updates, polite chasing messages, questions, pushback, issue explanations, or similar workplace communication for Australian companies. Ask targeted clarifying questions before rewriting when the intended meaning, recipient, action, deadline, blame, commitment, or technical conclusion is unclear.

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。

Hand off a task with only the context needed to continue in a fresh session. Use for "handoff", "引き継ぎ", "別セッションへ渡す", or "別マシンで続ける". The orca subcommand launches an independent Orca workspace or terminal tab; without it, produce a paste-ready prompt backed by a verified remote branch or PR. Do not launch sessions for capability questions or design requests.

Delegate reading large or multiple files to the `bulk-read` command, which sends the files to a cheaper reader model and returns only its answer. Use when a question needs the content of a file over about 350 lines or of several files at once, when a PreToolUse guard denied an unbounded read, or when the user says "bulk read", "一括読み込み", or "まとめて読んで". Do NOT use for files you are about to edit, for subtle correctness reasoning such as concurrency bugs, or for short files that fit a bounded read.