4,853 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Show what this NanoClaw instance can do — installed skills, available tools, and system info. Read-only. Use when the user asks what the bot can do, what's installed, or runs /capabilities.
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。
Take ONE specific bookmark URL and explore the neighborhood around it — tags, SIMILAR_TO neighbors, community peers — plus optionally WebFetch the page itself to summarize it. Use whenever Ahmad pastes a single URL and asks "what's near this", "tell me about this one", "expand this bookmark", "dig into this", "what else did I save like this", "give me the context for this URL". Triggers on "expand", "neighbors of", "what else like this", "dig into this URL", "context for this", and any message that's just a URL plus a short prompt.
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。
Build WhatsApp automations with Kapso workflows: configure WhatsApp triggers, edit workflow graphs, manage executions, deploy functions, and use databases/integrations for state. Use when automatin...
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。
Quality audit of a whole repo: bugs, security holes, what breaks under real load, risky code without tests, slow paths, and what to delete, merge or split. Ranked, each finding explained in plain English. One-shot report, changes nothing. Use for "audit this codebase", "review the whole repo", "find bloat", "what can I delete", /ponytail-audit.
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 schedule extract (milestone list or planning tool export) and the period's status notes into a DRAFT plain-language slip explanation: which milestones and activities slipped and by how many working days, arithmetic shown, why per the notes as verbatim fragments with source and date, what each slip pushes next per the extract, and the decision each slip needs framed as a question with the options the notes propose and the owner the governance documents name, every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "explain the schedule slip", "what slipped this month and why", "write the schedule commentary for the steering pack", "put the delay in plain language for the sponsor" or "what decisions do these slips need". Do not use for the weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead; for cost variances, use budget-variance-explainer; for one sprint's carry-over, use sprint-review-summary. 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 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。
Proposes redactions of personal identifiers in pasted text or an attached document (names, contact details, identification and account numbers, dates that identify, quasi-identifiers) and returns a DRAFT redacted copy with consistent placeholder tokens plus a redaction table stating what was replaced, where and why, with a confidence level and a blank reviewer decision per row. Use when the user asks to "redact the names in this document", "de-identify this transcript before we share it", "strip personal data from these notes", "anonymise this report for publication" or "what would need redacting here". Do not use for assessing a planned processing activity, use dpia-draft-pack instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Never declares a document anonymised, safe to release or compliant. 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。
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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。
Quality gate immediately after building: prove that what was just built actually works, while the context is still hot. Six steps: scope what changed, run live on real data, break it on purpose, show a counter or log proving it ran, root-cause any failure and re-run, then a verdict with evidence. Only a green verdict earns the word done. Supports an external multi-vendor review panel as a mid-step. Triggers: "/tt", "/test", "prove it works", "test what we built".
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。
Show what maintenance robots already did today before you repair anything by hand: backups, reindexes, guards, quotas and what went stale. Use when deciding whether to rerun a backup, or when a command was blocked by a once-a-day gate. Triggers: /hk, /housekeeping, what was done today, should I run the backup, why was this blocked, show quotas, housekeeping status.
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。
Check whether something was already decided before proposing it: searches the decisions journal, the declined registry and the rules codex plus semantic search, and returns what was decided, why, what was rejected, and under what condition to revisit. Triggers: "/precedent <topic>", "did we already decide this".
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。
Show what the background agents across every machine are doing right now, what they have built or committed, and whether anything is stuck or burning tokens. Read-only diagnostic. Triggers: "/fleet", "what are my agents doing", "is anything stuck".
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 the system-architect map: a deterministic catalog of everything the setup is made of (vault, import scripts, scheduled tasks, MCP servers, SQLite databases, hooks, skills, dashboards), what is healthy and what fell off. Consult it before changing shared infrastructure and re-scan after. Triggers: "/arch", "/arch broken", "/arch scan", "what broke in the system".
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。
View publication history for catalog resources — who changed what and when. Use when investigating timeline of changes, finding who modified a connector, or correlating changes across capture/collection/materialization chains. Use when user says "what changed", "who changed", "publication history", "catalog history", "when was it published", "timeline of changes", or "what happened to my connector".
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。
IRS Schedule C (Form 1040) expense category reference — every line from 8 to 27a with what belongs, what doesn't, and common mistakes. Covers COGS (Part III), operating expenses (Part II), and Form 8829 business use of home. Trigger on "what Schedule C line", "which expense category", "where does this go on Schedule C", "is this deductible".
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。
Build WhatsApp automations with Kapso workflows: configure WhatsApp triggers, edit workflow graphs, manage executions, deploy functions, and use databases/integrations for state. Use when automatin...
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。
Diagnose and fix WhatsApp connectivity issues for OpenClaw agents. Use when: a PA is not responding, WhatsApp shows connected but messages don't arrive, the agent is online but not replying, or troubleshooting a new agent setup.
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。
Search past WhatsApp/chat conversations stored in the audit log PostgreSQL database. Use when the user asks about past conversations, what was discussed, what someone said, finding a specific message, or referencing previous discussions. Also use to reply to or quote specific past messages.
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。
Central status dashboard for the PA agent. Use when: owner asks 'what's the status', 'what are you working on', 'what's happening', or any status/overview question. Aggregates active tasks, open issues, monitored groups, pending follow-ups, and system health into one structured report.
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 data/commitments.jsonl (flat list) into a who-owes-what-to-whom graph. Surfaces overdue chains and cross-PA dependencies that the flat list hides. Triggers: "what's overdue", "what did X promise", "commitment graph", "who's blocking whom".
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。
Name what was prioritized, what was sacrificed, and whether the tradeoff was right. Every design decision trades something. Use when evaluating design decisions, defending choices, or helping teams understand what they're giving up.
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。