4,503 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Interactive guided tour of all available AI coding skills with live demos. Walks through headline capabilities, offers try-it-now demos, discovers repo-specific tools, and provides a cheat sheet reference. Triggers on what can you do, show skills, skill tour, available tools, capabilities, what skills.
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。
Knowledge base from NASA-STD-8729.1A — NASA's R&M (Reliability and Maintainability) standard covering spaceflight and support systems (Revision A, 2017-06-13). Use for NASA's objectives-driven R&M framework — the R&M objectives hierarchy (one Top Objective decomposed into four sub-objectives, paired with tailorable strategies), how R&M requirements are established inside the SMA Plan required by NPR 7120.5, the SMA Technical Authority concurrence/independent-evaluation governance, milestone vs. readiness review gates, the reliability/maintainability/availability vocabulary (Ai vs. Ao, the failure causal chain, risk as a triplet), and the R&M Evidentiary Methods catalogue (FMEA/FMECA, FTA, RBDA, RCM, LORA, plus the space-environment and parts-pedigree analyses). Scoped to NASA spaceflight and support systems and to assurance planning: it is an objectives-and-strategies standard, so it deliberately does NOT prescribe step-by-step analysis procedures (those live in the referenced NASA Preferred Reliability Practices) and is thin on facility R&M, detailed math/derivations, and non-NASA or commercial life cycles.
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。
Knowledge base from NASA NPR 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).
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。
Knowledge base from the FAA System Safety Handbook (Dec 30, 2000). Use for system safety as a specialty within systems engineering: the five-step safety risk management process (mandated by FAA Order 8040.4 and the AMS), the severity-by-likelihood risk matrix and acceptance bands, the Safety Order of Precedence, system-description models (5M, SHEL(L)), the hazard-analysis activities (PHL/PHA/RHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA/HHA), integrated system hazard analysis, the analysis techniques (FTA, FMEA/FMECA, Fault Hazard, Common Cause, Sneak Circuit, Energy Trace), closed-loop hazard tracking (Safety Action Record), and the specialty domains the handbook covers — acquisition-lifecycle safety and contracting (OSA/CSA/SSPP/ISSPP), software safety (control-capability ranking, SHCM, DO-178B), test & evaluation safety, facilities safety, commercial launch safety (AST licensing, expected casualty, MPL/DAMP), system safety training, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) with human/organizational factors. Scope limits: this is a year-2000 FAA how-to; it predates the modern FAA/ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) and Just Culture regulatory frameworks, and many cited orders, advisory circulars, and launch-licensing rules have since been restructured. It is FAA/NAS-centric, leans on MIL-STD-882C, and does not define the SE life-cycle processes themselves (use nasa-npr-7123 / dau-se-guidebook) or reproduce third-party standard text (MIL-STD-882, DO-178B, ISO/IEC/IEEE).
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。
Knowledge base from the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook (Version 2022, OSD ManTech / Joint Service–Industry MRL Working Group). Use for assessing and managing manufacturing maturity and producibility risk in defense acquisition: the 10-level MRL scale and its non-linear, target-not-grade nature; the five demonstration environments (laboratory → production-relevant → production-representative → pilot line → production line); the nine manufacturing-risk threads and sub-threads; how MRL targets map onto Adaptive Acquisition Framework milestones (MRL 4/6/7/8/9); conducting an MRL Assessment; building a Manufacturing Maturation Plan; putting MRL maturity into contract language (Section L/M, SOW, AS6500A, DIDs); tailoring criteria for S&T, single-system, ship, sustainment, and industry contexts; and screening operational-technology cybersecurity. Manufacturing-readiness focused — it measures producibility risk and frames mitigation; it is NOT a technology-readiness (TRL) guide, a full systems-engineering process model, a cost-estimating or schedule guide, or a deep cybersecurity audit method (see sibling packs for those).
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。
Knowledge base from the DoD Digital Engineering Strategy (2018, OUSD/ODASD(SE)). Use for the Department of Defense's five digital engineering goals — (1) formalize the development, integration, and use of models; (2) provide an enduring authoritative source of truth; (3) incorporate technological innovation; (4) establish supporting infrastructure and environments; (5) transform the culture and workforce — plus their focus areas, the document-to-model and design-build-test→model-analyze-build shifts, model formalisms/provenance, governance and access control of the authoritative source of truth, and the coordinate→plan→pilot→sustain rollout. A vision-and-policy strategy, deliberately non-prescriptive. Does NOT provide a how-to method, tool tutorials, MBSE/SysML mechanics, or implementation-plan content; thin on metrics, acquisition-policy detail, and step-by-step procedure. Excludes the CAC-gated Digital Engineering Body of Knowledge (DEBoK).
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: Pro/Con matrix, weighted scoring, decision tree, scenario analysis, and Eisenhower matrix.
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。
Operating Rojo — the filesystem-to-Roblox-Studio sync tool for professional Roblox development in VS Code / Claude Code instead of the Studio editor. Use this skill whenever Rojo is involved: `rojo serve`/`rojo build`, writing or debugging `default.project.json`, rokit/rokit.toml and tool versions (Rojo, Lune, Wally), nested vs. flat path mapping (ReplicatedStorage.Project.shared), connect/port/sync problems, or when a Roblox project skeleton needs to be created. Also trigger on "rojo connect not working", "scripts end up in the wrong place in Studio", "how do I map src/ to Studio", "port 34872 in use", "ModuleScript vs Script in Rojo".
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。
Meta-skill for complete Roblox game development with Rojo — the entry point that knows and unifies the three specialist skills `/rojo` (filesystem→Studio sync, project setup), `/rbx-studio` (editor, MCP, assets, malware scan) and `/game-design` (roles, workflows, GDD). Use this skill for ANY Roblox game-dev undertaking: planning/building/setting up a Roblox game, scaffolding a new project, defining code architecture (Main + manager modules, _G.ClientState + HUD, remotes in GameEnums), avoiding Luau/Roblox pitfalls, or when it is unclear which of the Roblox specialist skills fits — routing happens from here. Also trigger on "develop Roblox game", "build Roblox game", "new Roblox project", "Luau project structure", "how do I organize Roblox code", "Roblox dev 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。
Scores inbound leads against the qualification rubric the user supplies (criteria, scale, weights, thresholds and disqualifiers as given): one DRAFT scorecard per lead with the evidence quoted per criterion, UNKNOWN wherever the lead's information is missing, totals shown with and without the UNKNOWN criteria, a ranked list and a suggested next step such as a qualification call, a request for missing details, nurture or a courteous decline. Use when the user asks to "score these inbound leads", "qualify this lead against our rubric", "run the web form submissions through our lead criteria", "which of these leads should sales call first" or "build a lead scorecard". Do not use for preparing the first call with a lead, use discovery-call-prep instead; for an existing account's growth plan use account-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 list of merged changes, closed work items or commit messages the user provides into DRAFT release notes under the version heading and date the user supplies, grouped as features, fixes and other, in the organisation's tone from the style guide or prior notes given, with every entry traced to its source item, breaking changes and required actions flagged first, and internal-only items held back for the release owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write the release notes for this version", "turn these merged pull requests into a changelog", "summarise what shipped this sprint for customers", "draft the what's new for this release" or "group these closed tickets into release notes". Do not use for an announcement email or intranet post about a launch, use announcement-drafter instead; for a change ticket, use change-request-pack; for a how-to article about one fix, use knowledge-article-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。
Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-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。
Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-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。
Builds a personal voice profile from roughly 90 days of the user's own sent messages and meeting speech, then drafts emails and documents that match how the user actually writes, returning the profile and every draft as Markdown for the user to keep, paste or send themselves. Use when the user asks to "write this like me", "match my voice", "draft this in my tone", "build my voice profile" or "refresh my voice profile". Do not use for an announcement in the organisation's voice, use announcement-drafter instead, nor for a weekly status email, use weekly-status-update-writer 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。
Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-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。
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。
Drafts one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, 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 contract list (spreadsheet, CSV or pasted table) and returns a DRAFT renewal radar: each active contract's end date, notice deadline with its arithmetic, days remaining, renewal type, owner and the decision it needs as options, sorted by urgency, with owner action lists and a deadline calendar. Never renews, terminates, serves notice or recommends. Use when the user asks to "build a renewal tracker", "tell me what comes up for renewal", "work out when notice is due", "show me which contracts auto-renew" or "run the quarterly contract review". Do not use for reviewing one contract's full text or clauses, use contract-review-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。
Turns process notes, a walkthrough or interview transcript, a transcript of a meeting recording or a stale existing procedure into a draft standard operating procedure: purpose and trigger, scope, definitions, roles with a RACI table, numbered steps with the check that closes each one, records produced, controls as stated, and open questions for the process owner. Every step traces to the source or reads UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write an SOP from these notes", "turn this walkthrough into a procedure", "document how we do this", "draft the standard operating procedure for", "build a RACI for this process" or "tidy up this old procedure". Do not use for technical runbooks with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for meeting minutes and action lists, use transcript-to-actions. 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。
Drafts the instructions field of a declarative agent that orchestrates a set of custom skills, under a character cap (default 8,000), from the skills' names and descriptions: role and scope, one routing rule per skill, workflow order, gates written as workflow holds, global rules, output format and what the agent never does. Returns the text in a fenced block with its character count labelled counted or estimated, plus a skill inventory, routing table, gate table, rules trace and open questions for the owner. Use when the user asks to "write the instructions for my agent", "draft a system prompt that ties these skills together", "tighten these agent instructions to fit the cap", "how should the agent route between these skills" or "revise my agent's orchestration text". Do not use to review a single SKILL.md, use skill-file-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。
Drafts one service catalogue entry (description, scope in and out, owners and support groups, service levels exactly as provided, request path, dependencies, charging, lifecycle) from the service team's notes, questionnaire answers or existing documents, with UNKNOWN and a question list for every field the inputs do not cover. Never invents a service level, owner or price. Use when the user asks to "write the catalogue entry for this service", "turn these questionnaire answers into a service description", "tidy this request catalogue item" or "check this draft entry for empty fields". Do not use for a how-to or known-error article, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for operating procedures, use runbook-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。
Builds a DRAFT course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, 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。
Builds a DRAFT change-communication plan from a change description: audience map, key messages per audience traced to the description, channels, sequence with dates or day offsets, owners, feedback loop and open questions, plus drafts of the first messages for the sponsor to approve. Use when the user asks to "plan the comms for this change", "who needs to hear about this and when", "draft the announcement sequence", "build a communication plan for the rollout", "write the first message to managers about this change" or "how do we tell people about this". Do not use for a clause-by-clause comparison of a changed HR policy with its previous version, use policy-change-briefing instead; for a new hire's first weeks, 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。