「boundaries」の検索結果

Use when checking skill metadata, references or repository boundaries, or preparing an explicitly requested skills 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。

Use when defining or debugging Spring Boot 4 database transaction boundaries, rollback, propagation, optimistic-lock retries, or commit-bound events. For duplicate HTTP commands use idempotency-patterns; for reactive transactions use webflux-reactive-patterns.

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 when building batch jobs, ETL pipelines, scheduled imports/exports, or any chunk-oriented bulk processing with Spring Batch. Covers the Spring Batch 5 / Boot 3 builder API, restartability and idempotent job parameters, reader/writer thread-safety, fault tolerance, and chunk transaction boundaries.

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 when generating or modifying any Spring Boot class — controllers, services, repositories, DTOs, mappers, or configuration. Enforces strict layer separation and prevents business logic from leaking across boundaries.

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 when defining or debugging Spring Boot 3 database transaction boundaries, rollback, propagation, optimistic-lock retries, or commit-bound events. For duplicate HTTP commands use idempotency-patterns; for reactive transactions use webflux-reactive-patterns.

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 when building batch jobs, ETL pipelines, scheduled imports/exports, or any chunk-oriented bulk processing with Spring Batch. Covers the Spring Batch 6 / Boot 4 builder API, resourceless vs JDBC job repositories, restartability and idempotent job parameters, reader/writer thread-safety, fault tolerance, and chunk transaction boundaries.

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。

Establishes boundaries for monitoring remote and hybrid workers including screen capture, productivity tracking, camera and microphone activation, attendance verification, and activity logging. Applies proportionality principles, transparency requirements, and evaluates less intrusive alternatives per EDPB and national DPA guidance. Keywords: remote work, monitoring, screen capture, productivity tracking, webcam, home office, hybrid work, proportionality, surveillance.

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。

Implements BYOD privacy compliance frameworks for personal device use in the workplace. Covers personal vs corporate data separation, MDM capabilities and limitations, employee consent requirements, data wiping boundaries, and monitoring restrictions on personal devices. Keywords: BYOD, mobile device management, MDM, personal device, data separation, containerisation, remote wipe, employee privacy.

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。

Methodology for auditing A/B testing of consent banners to ensure compliance with equal ease of acceptance and rejection. Covers CNIL enforcement patterns including the EUR 150M Google fine, dark pattern detection methodology, manipulative design identification, and regulatory-compliant experimentation boundaries.

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。

Owns repositories, data sources and mapping for Compose and Compose Multiplatform apps: DTO to domain to UiModel boundaries, Ktor clients and bearer auth, WebSocket and SSE, Room, DataStore, Paging 3, offline-first and data-layer tests. Use when writing or reviewing a repository, data source, DTO, mapper, HttpClient, bearer token, WebSocket, SSE, Room DAO, migration, DataStore, PagingSource, RemoteMediator, offline cache or MockEngine test. Do NOT use for ViewModel or UI wiring (compose-feature), composables (compose-ui), the MVI contract or error tiers (compose-architecture), Gradle modules (compose-project), or commonMain vs platform splits (compose-platform).

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。

Investigate how a concept, code path, application, network flow, system, incident, document, or local artifact actually works, then deliver a two-depth visual HTML explainer with a dead-simple big-picture first layer and source-backed technical depth behind it. Use when the user invokes $xray, asks how something works under the hood, wants a module or app behavior traced across boundaries, requests web, code, network, or safe static artifact research before explanation, or asks for an evidence-backed explainer. Do not use for answer-only definitions, general web design, full codebase audits, or invasive binary reverse engineering without explicit authorization.

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。

Threat-model product features, APIs, data flows, secrets, permissions, supply-chain changes, auth boundaries, and risky code paths before or during implementation. Use when touching authentication, authorization, payments, secrets, user data, uploads, webhooks, admin tools, innerHTML/eval/exec, dependency upgrades, or cross-tenant access.

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 and verify data contracts, schema changes, migrations, rollbacks, backfills, compatibility windows, tenant isolation, and API-to-database field mapping. Use when changing database schema, event payloads, persisted documents, analytics tables, multi-tenant data boundaries, or any user-visible data contract where silent fallback or undeclared fields would be dangerous.

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 architecture foundations before implementation. Use when asked to design or refactor architecture, choose Rust/Go crate, package, module, runtime, workflow, or service boundaries, compare mature project architecture, prevent stacked one-off PRs, audit migration debt in existing repos, or produce a spec before coding.

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 update repository-specific AGENTS.md instruction files from real repo evidence. Use when asked to create, design, scaffold, split, or improve root or scoped AGENTS.md files for Codex/Claude/agent workflows, especially when a repo needs directory-specific rules, validation commands, generated-file boundaries, or a short agent onboarding router.

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。

Plans an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build it.

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。

Restructure existing code without changing its behavior, through a test-gated refactoring loop: a named target, a green suite over that target before any edit, a planned sequence of small named refactorings, and the full suite re-run after every step. Use when the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, simplify, or improve the design of existing code, or to apply refactoring recommendations from a code-review or architectural-analysis report. This skill changes code; it does not review code (use code-review), assess architecture (use architectural-analysis), plan a multi-module restructure before executing it (use plan-a-change), map domain boundaries before restructuring along them (use ddd-analysis), or build new behavior test-first (use tdd). Do not use it on code inside an active tdd loop; the refactor step of tdd owns that cleanup. Runs its planned sequence to completion without pausing for review; to review each named refactoring as it lands, use pairing.

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。

Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

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。

Fix JavaScript regex failures when matching CJK (Chinese/Japanese/Korean) text using \b word boundaries. Use when: (1) Regex pattern with \b silently fails to match Japanese, Chinese, or Korean text, (2) Pattern works for Latin/ASCII text but not CJK, (3) hasDriverLicenceCue or similar text-detection function returns false for CJK input despite correct characters, (4) inferIssuerFromTitleText or pattern-matching functions fail on non-Latin scripts. Root cause: JavaScript \b only recognizes [a-zA-Z0-9_] as "word characters" — CJK characters are classified as \W (non-word), so \b before/after CJK always sees a non-word/non-word boundary and fails to match.

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。

Connect to x.ruv.io, read federation channels and claims, or coordinate authorized work across Ruflo hosts with explicit identity and publishing boundaries.

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 the repository's risk-tiered independent final review before implementation completion. Use only when explicitly invoked or when repository instructions require it after behavior-impacting implementation work; audit the complete task diff, supported contracts, lifecycle and security boundaries, complexity, and tests before final verification.

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。

Explain GRACE 4 methodology, .grace artifacts, semantic anchors, change lifecycle, verification, and migration boundaries.

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 GRACE 4 project health across .grace context, graph, verification, active changes, scopes, and migration boundaries.

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。

Analyze formal verification artifacts (Isabelle, Coq, Dafny, etc.) and produce structured reports identifying the precise boundary between verified, assumed, and unverified components. Use when assessing verification coverage, understanding trust boundaries, auditing formal proofs, or documenting verification scope. Reports explicitly list verified code, assumptions, axioms, trusted computing base, and unverified components. Conservative and explicit about verification status without attempting to repair or mask gaps.

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。