473 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.
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。
Update Codex's pinned `v8` / `rusty_v8` versions, validate the release-candidate path, and investigate failed V8 canary or artifact builds. Use when asked to bump V8, update `rusty_v8` artifacts, prepare or validate a V8 release candidate, check `v8-canary`, or diagnose why a V8 version update no longer builds.
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 the user shares a Sentry URL, says "check Sentry", or wants to investigate production errors. Uses Sentry MCP tools for deep analysis.
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。
[Workflow] Use when activating the Integration Test Green workflow — drive an integration-test suite to fully green with a bounded convergence loop: verify the whole system (or the named target), adjudicate every failure with /debug-investigate + /integration-test-review before any edit, fix at the owning layer, /changes-review each round's fix diff, re-verify from scratch, then sync spec TCs, the integration-test reference doc, and feature docs.
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。
[Investigation] Use when about to author a new Feature Spec from an idea — investigate all existing Feature Specs AND related code logic first to surface related/overlapping/affected specs, missing features, missing test cases/user stories, system unknowns, and the invariant landscape, before any spec is drafted.
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。
[Testing] Use when you need to drive an integration-test suite to fully green — each round runs /integration-test-verify (whole system by default, or the target named in the prompt), and on ANY failure combines /debug-investigate + /integration-test-review (report-only) to adjudicate the fault (test wrong · test not optimal · source wrong), then /fix to resolve it at the owning layer, then /changes-review on that round's fix diff, then re-runs a FRESH full verify — looping until the whole suite passes its 2-consecutive-green-runs gate with zero failures.
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 & Debug] Use when investigating a bug's root cause — reproduce the symptom, trace it end-to-start through the code, form and test hypotheses, and pinpoint the defect before any fix.
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。
Conduct comprehensive AI-powered research with citations via the Tavily CLI. Use this skill when the user wants deep research, a detailed report, a comparison, market analysis, literature review, or says "research", "investigate", "analyze in depth", "compare X vs Y", "what does the market look like for", or needs multi-source synthesis with explicit citations. Returns a structured report grounded in web sources. Takes 30-120 seconds. For quick fact-finding, use tavily-search 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。
Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.
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。
GStack investigation method for bugs, incidents, failing tests, regressions, and unclear behavior where evidence and root cause should precede fixes.
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 an evidence-backed working model of an existing codebase. Use when you must orient in a large or unfamiliar repository; explain architecture or a subsystem; trace a request, runtime, control, or data flow for a concrete question or bug; analyze a branch, commit, diff, or pull request for behavioral impact and blast radius; or assess AI-generated or changed code against requirements, contracts, invariants, tests, and runtime evidence. Default to read-only investigation. Do not trigger only because a coding task touches an existing repository; use when understanding or verification is the requested outcome or a substantial prerequisite.
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。
Conduct reproducible web searches and decision-oriented research across official sites, search engines, news, papers, forums, social platforms, and public datasets. Use when Codex must investigate a person, organization, product, market, technical resource, reputation, career choice, or other current topic; compare candidates; verify claims; collect dated citations; distinguish facts from inference and anecdote; or write an evidence-backed research 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。
Detect and investigate Azure service principal abuse including privilege escalation, credential compromise, admin consent bypass, and unauthorized enumeration in Microsoft Entra ID environments.
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。
Correlates security events in IBM QRadar SIEM using AQL (Ariel Query Language), custom rules, building blocks, and offense management to detect multi-stage attacks across network, endpoint, and application log sources. Use when SOC analysts need to investigate QRadar offenses, build correlation rules, or tune detection logic for reducing false positives.
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。
Analyzes Windows Security, System, and Sysmon event logs in Splunk to detect authentication attacks, privilege escalation, persistence mechanisms, and lateral movement using SPL queries mapped to MITRE ATT&CK techniques. Use when SOC analysts need to investigate Windows-based threats, build detection queries, or perform forensic timeline analysis of Windows endpoints and domain controllers.
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 USB device connection history from Windows registry, event logs, and setupapi logs to track removable media usage and potential data exfiltration.
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 supply chain attack artifacts including trojanized software updates, compromised build pipelines, and sideloaded dependencies to identify intrusion vectors and scope of compromise.
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。
Leverages Splunk Enterprise Security and SPL (Search Processing Language) to investigate security incidents through log correlation, timeline reconstruction, and anomaly detection. Covers Windows event logs, firewall logs, proxy logs, and authentication data analysis. Activates for requests involving Splunk investigation, SPL queries, SIEM log analysis, security event correlation, or log-based incident investigation.
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 compromised Docker containers by analyzing images, layers, volumes, logs, and runtime artifacts to identify malicious activity and evidence.
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 the bug described on this card
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。
Run a live investigation as an operator-driven query loop: the operator runs each query on the live system and pastes the result back, and you guide the investigation one labelled query at a time. Use alongside support-assist (which covers what to investigate) whenever someone is pasting query or command output back from a deployment, especially during an incident. Covers labelling, pacing, making each query decide the next step, version-grounding, and keeping queries cheap and correctly classified.
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。
Run a support investigation as a suggest-and-interpret loop, never executing anything yourself — orient to the product's support pack and follow the signal with judgment. Use when someone asks for help triaging, investigating, or resolving an operational or support issue on a deployment. Not for feature-development cards (see investigate-and-fix and implement-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。
Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "scope this analytical question". (narrative-common)
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 Codex provider rollout JSONL and ego-benchmark-harness run artifacts to identify slow or failed individual tasks, tool retries, token/cost anomalies, and differences in agent execution paths. Use when users ask to analyze a Codex session or rollout, explain why a Codex task was slow or failed, inspect a Codex provider execution trace, compare Codex runs, count function_call or tool output events, or investigate agent-home/.codex/sessions.
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。