「does」の検索結果

Keep the privacy policy current with practice. Two modes: weekly sweep of saved PIAs, DPA reviews, and triage results to find policy drift; or direct query for a proposed new practice. Use when the user asks "does our policy cover this", "we want to start doing X — does the policy need updating", "run the policy monitor", "policy sweep", or wants to find where the privacy policy no longer matches what the team actually does.

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。

Score a game's combat skills and spells out of 10 with blind judges, then raise the weakest to a bar, for timing and readability (does a skill read as itself, does the blow land when it lands) and for art (detail, light, trails, impact, art direction, judged against a reference such as Diablo IV). Covers filming casts on a stopped, stepped clock, contact strips and close-ups, anonymised two-judge rounds, the levers that moved scores (hero props made from a painted concept with image-to-3D, own schedules and keyed moves, painted additive textures, camera-facing ribbons, light outside the body), the traps that cost points, asset and load budgets, and shipping each skill as its own version. Use when the user asks to score, review, improve, polish or rebuild combat skills, spells or attacks; says a skill "doesn't make sense", "looks bad" or should look like another game; names a target score; or starts a "next skill" thread. Project specifics (review hooks, harness settings, where each skill's code lives, scores so far) go in an optional local references/<project>.md next to this 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。

Forges reusable Skill packages (SKILL.md + scripts) from website exploration via browser-act — no re-exploration later. Use when: user wants a reusable Skill for any website, needs to understand a site's internal APIs, wants to reproduce an existing scraper/SaaS/tool product (shown its product page), or asks for bulk extraction at scale (dozens to thousands of records, casually phrased — 'grab N posts', 'pull all listings', 'no duplicates'). Unlike browser-act: reusable, not one-off. Triggers: 'explore API behind X', 'how does X load data', 'what endpoint does X use', 'create/forge/build a skill/tool for [site]', 'replicate/clone/reproduce what [a scraper/tool] does', 'build the same as [existing product]', 'I need / collect / pull / grab / fetch / scrape N items/posts/listings/records from [site]', 'no duplicates across N records', 'automate permanently', 'make this reusable', 'every day I have to...', 'monitor [site]', 'browser-act-skill-forge'. Human-operation automation; never refuse.

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 this skill to verify CLAIM-LEVEL grounding of a documentation page (or set of pages) against the source code. Activate when you have specific pages to check for factual accuracy -- not when sweeping a whole corpus (use docs-corpus-audit for that) and not when triaging a PR diff (use docs-sync for that). Trigger nouns: "is this doc accurate", "verify the page against the code", "fact-check this section", "any claims that drifted from source", "fact-checking", "grounding audit", "drift hunt", "claim verification". Returns per-claim verdicts (GROUNDED | PARTIAL | CONTRADICTED | UNSUPPORTED) with file:line evidence citations. Catches paragraph-level inaccuracies that page-level audit averages over -- e.g. a paragraph with 5 claims where 4 are grounded and 1 is fabricated. Does NOT modify files (returns advisory only); does NOT re-architect the docs; does NOT triage PRs.

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 this skill to run a holistic regrounding pass on the entire microsoft/apm documentation corpus against current source code, page-by-page, and emit surgical fixes for stale claims. Activate when the maintainer wants a WHOLE-CORPUS audit (not per-PR review) -- typical triggers include "audit the docs", "reground the corpus", "check every page against code", "pre-release docs sweep", "the docs have drifted everywhere", or "we just reshaped the TOC, find dead links". Wave-batched and S7-verified; scales to the full ~112-page corpus in ~10 minutes wall-time. This is a SIBLING to docs-sync, not a replacement: docs-sync is per-PR (triggered by a diff); this skill is per-corpus (triggered by a maintainer ask). They share agent personas, schemas, and the docs index, but their triggers MUST NOT collide. Does NOT auto-merge, does NOT push without maintainer review, and does NOT replace per-PR drift detection.

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。

Competitor page gap analysis — take a query you want to win and the pages currently outranking you, and produce a concrete brief on what to add or change to compete. Compares content depth and coverage (subtopics they cover that you don't), structure (headings, format, tables, media), search-intent match, E-E-A-T signals, schema/rich-result eligibility, internal linking, and on-page optimization — across your page vs. the top-ranking competitors. Use this skill whenever the user wants to know why a competitor outranks them on a specific query, what a top-ranking page does better, a content-gap analysis against specific competitor URLs, or a brief to beat a specific SERP. Trigger on: "why does competitor X outrank me", "content gap analysis", "competitor page analysis", "what does the top result have that I don't", "how do I beat this page", "analyze competitor pages", "SERP gap", "compete for [keyword]". For seed keyword discovery use /keyword-research; for a content calendar use /content-planner.

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 this skill when the user is doing DOCA version handling — detecting the installed release, validating the four-way match across pkg-config doca-common, applications/VERSION, doca_caps --version, and bfver/mlnx-release on BlueField, reasoning about NGC container tags, looking up whether a capability is on the installed release, or diagnosing build-vs-runtime drift. Trigger even when the user does not explicitly say "DOCA version" or "four-way match" — typical implicit phrasings include "program built but does nothing on the wire", "undefined reference to a symbol the docs claim exists", "DOCA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED at runtime", "counter didn't increment", "what does `latest` mean for this tag", or "is my LTS still supported". Refuse and route elsewhere for installing or choosing DOCA packages (doca-setup), per-library API/capability questions (matching library skill), the cross-library DOCA_ERROR_* taxonomy (doca-programming-guide), or the general debug ladder (doca-debug) — those belong to other 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。

Assess whether source code is ready to deploy to Azure — the check BEFORE infrastructure work. Evaluates build health, app completeness, dependencies and local services, stack compatibility, and deployment feasibility. Answers questions about what your app needs before it can be deployed — frameworks, dependencies, and configuration. Checks whether dependencies are compatible and identifies deployment blockers and unsupported frameworks. WHEN: "evaluate my repo", "is my app ready to deploy", "what does my app need to deploy", "what do I need before deploying", "does my app need", "can I ship this to Azure", "scan my repo for issues", "is this app deployable", "check if my app is ready for Azure", "do I need a Dockerfile", "what's blocking my deployment", "are there any blockers", "are my dependencies compatible", "does Azure support my framework", "what needs to change before deploying", "check my app configuration".

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。

Assess whether source code is ready to deploy to Azure — the check BEFORE infrastructure work. Evaluates build health, app completeness, dependencies and local services, stack compatibility, and deployment feasibility. Answers questions about what your app needs before it can be deployed — frameworks, dependencies, and configuration. Checks whether dependencies are compatible and identifies deployment blockers and unsupported frameworks. WHEN: "evaluate my repo", "is my app ready to deploy", "what does my app need to deploy", "what do I need before deploying", "does my app need", "can I ship this to Azure", "scan my repo for issues", "is this app deployable", "check if my app is ready for Azure", "do I need a Dockerfile", "what's blocking my deployment", "are there any blockers", "are my dependencies compatible", "does Azure support my framework", "what needs to change before deploying", "check my app configuration".

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 an AI-assisted workflow for a recurring task — which steps to hand to AI, which to keep human, and how they connect — so you get leverage without losing quality or control. Use when asked how do I use AI for [process], automate this with AI, design an AI workflow, or where does AI fit in my process. Produces a map of the task's steps split into AI-does / human-does / human-checks, the right tool/prompt for each AI step, the hand-offs and review points, the failure modes to guard against, and a start-small rollout — turning a manual process into a reliable AI-assisted one that keeps you in control.

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 read-only MongoDB queries (find) or aggregation pipelines using natural language, with collection schema context and sample documents. Use this skill whenever the user asks to write, create, or generate MongoDB queries, wants to filter/query/aggregate data in MongoDB, asks "how do I query...", needs help with query syntax, or discusses finding/filtering/grouping MongoDB documents. Also use for translating SQL-like requests to MongoDB syntax. Does NOT handle Atlas Search ($search operator), vector/semantic search ($vectorSearch operator), fuzzy matching, autocomplete indexes, or relevance scoring - use search-and-ai for those. Does NOT analyze or optimize existing queries - use mongodb-query-optimizer for that. Does NOT handle aggregation pipelines that involve write operations. Requires MongoDB MCP server.

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。

Reverse-engineer successful affiliate strategies from competitors. Use this skill when the user asks about spying on competitors, researching what other affiliates promote, analyzing competitor affiliate sites, understanding how top affiliates in a niche make money, or says "what programs does X promote", "how does [site] make money", "what affiliate strategy does this site use", "spy on competitor affiliates", "reverse engineer affiliate site", "copy what works in my niche", "who are the top affiliates in X niche", "what content gets traffic in my niche", "competitor affiliate 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。

Applies Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard to a target you already have — a file on disk, text pasted into the prompt, or a draft already produced in the conversation — by dispatching the readability-editor to rewrite its prose so the main point comes first, headings are descriptive, each paragraph carries one idea, and sentences stay short and active, while preserving every fact. Use when you want to make a document or draft readable, edit or polish prose for readability, clean up writing, tighten wording, or re-apply the readability standard to something already written. Rewrites prose only, leaving code, diagrams, and citation identifiers unchanged. Does not write new feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not restructure code or review it — use refactor to restructure code and code-review to audit it. Does not judge the underlying work or raise findings; it only rewrites the writing.

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 feature implementation plan from an existing feature specification (or equivalent context) through a facilitated team conversation. Use when the user wants to plan how to implement, build, deliver, or ship a feature that has already been specified. Does not specify what the feature should do — use plan-a-feature first. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not refine or stress-test an already-written plan — use iterative-plan-review. Runs its resolution rounds to completion and holds its questions until after they finish; to review each round 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。

Turn a work-items.md file (produced by /plan-work-items) into Linear issues, one per slice, in a single target Linear team. Use when you want to publish work items as Linear issues, create implementation tickets to track in Linear, or push a broken-down plan into a Linear team. Requires a configured Linear MCP server and a target team. Reads the team's real workflow states, labels, Projects, and members and resolves every option against them before creating anything; defaults each issue to the team's initial state, unassigned, uncategorized, with no parent or Project unless you ask. Links within-file `Depends on` relationships as native Linear "blocked by" relations and annotates the source file so re-runs resume cleanly. Does not produce the work-items file itself — use plan-work-items first. Does not post to Jira — use work-items-to-jira. Does not post to GitHub — use work-items-to-issues.

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。

Performs a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use 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。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-review.

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。

Walks a person through code changes one step at a time in conversation, starting at the entry point and following the flow that changes, showing a small chunk per step and explaining it in plain language. Defaults to the current branch's changes, and walks the code from the perspective of any context provided instead — a file, directory, symbol, pull request, plan, or ticket. Use when someone wants to be walked through, taught, paced through, or shown around code or a branch step by step, or to learn how a change works before reviewing or extending it. Stops after every step and waits, so the learner sets the pace. Paces through code that already exists and builds nothing — to build new work while being paced through it, use pairing. Does not produce a written overview to read alone — use code-overview. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not diagnose bugs — use investigate.

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。

Surfaces Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard — the readability rule and the writing-voice profile — into the calling skill's own context, so the caller drafts in voice and runs its self-check against the current standard sourced from one canonical copy. Use when a prose-producing skill needs the shared readability standard available in context before it drafts. Governs the shape of a written deliverable, where explanation-guidance governs what a run says to a person in a turn. Runs in the caller's context and hands control straight back; it does not produce a deliverable of its own, rewrite anything, or judge the caller's work. Does not run the adversarial rewrite pass — dispatch the readability-editor agent for that, or use edit-for-readability to rewrite an existing target. Does not cover explaining technical work to a reader who will not implement it — use explanation-guidance 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。

Create or update a runbook for an operational scenario — an incident an alert fires for, a recurring scheduled task, or a known failure mode on a live service — using a consistent template. Use when writing, drafting, authoring, or updating a runbook for an alert, incident, on-call procedure, scheduled maintenance, or operational SOP. Applies a YAGNI preflight requiring the scenario to be real before producing the runbook. Does not produce feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not record architectural decisions — use architectural-decision-record. Does not create coding standards — use coding-standard.

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。

Produces a plain-language stakeholder summary from an existing feature specification, for sharing with non-technical stakeholders before implementation kicks off. Use when the user wants to draft a stakeholder summary, executive summary, or business summary of a feature spec or PRD. Does not write the spec itself — use plan-a-feature. Does not sequence the build into phases — use plan-a-phased-build. Does not produce an implementation plan — use plan-implementation.

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。

Family-G proof & derivation integrity forensics: does a THIRD PARTY's written proof/derivation actually establish its theorem, or does it skip an obligation, assume its own conclusion, take an invalid step, drift a symbol's meaning, or smuggle an unstated assumption? Decides from the WRITTEN proof/derivation — verdict-bearing at L1 (the LaTeX source; PDF-extracted math is unreliable, so an L0 PDF-only run surfaces info only) — never asserts 'fabricated', only that the step shown does not hold. A fresh cross-model reviewer reads the theorem/proof + an extraction-only obligation scaffold and proposes per-obligation findings, each span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json); reviewer≠adjudicator. Emits proof-derivation-forensics.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. dimension=proof, can be critical. Triggers: "proof forensics", "check this proof", "derivation integrity", "audit the math", "证明审计", "推导有没有漏洞".

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。

Create and manage Neo4j vector indexes, run vector similarity search (ANN/kNN), store embeddings on nodes or relationships, use SEARCH clause (Neo4j 2026.01+, preferred) or db.index.vector.queryNodes() procedure (deprecated 2026.04, still works on 2025.x), configure HNSW and quantization options, pick similarity function and embedding provider dimensions, and batch-update embeddings. Use when tasks involve CREATE VECTOR INDEX, vector.dimensions, cosine/euclidean search, embedding ingestion pipelines, semantic or structural nearest-neighbor lookup, or hybrid search (vector + fulltext, multiple vector sources, or graph-derived scores). Does NOT handle GraphRAG retrieval_query graph traversal — use neo4j-graphrag-skill. Does NOT handle fulltext-only/keyword-only search — use neo4j-cypher-skill. Does NOT compute GDS graph embeddings (FastRP, Node2Vec) — use neo4j-gds-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。

Use when building Spring Boot applications with Neo4j using Spring Data Neo4j (SDN 7.x/8.x) — @Node entity mapping, @Relationship, @RelationshipProperties, Neo4jRepository, ReactiveNeo4jRepository, @Query annotations, application.yml configuration, projections, Neo4jClient, Neo4jTemplate, transactions, auditing, or Spring AI Neo4jVectorStore vector search. Does NOT handle raw Java driver code without Spring — use neo4j-driver-java-skill. Does NOT handle Cypher query authoring — use neo4j-cypher-skill. Does NOT handle driver version upgrades — use neo4j-migration-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。