「edge cases」の検索結果

Deep behavioral audit of a Lattice skill — proposes 3 review personas relevant to the skill, runs independent scenario analysis from each persona's perspective, then merges only the high-confidence, practical findings into a severity-ordered gap report with proposed fixes. Structural validation (conventions, cross-references) is skill-validate's job — this skill finds gaps that would realistically surface when someone actually uses the skill: missing scenario handling, ambiguous instructions, silent failure cases, and behavioral inconsistencies. Filters out theoretical edge cases, low-likelihood speculation, and findings owned by other skills. Use after writing or significantly changing any skill, or when the user says 'review this skill', 'deep review', 'does this skill work', 'find gaps in this skill', 'stress test this skill', 'review from different angles', or 'skill review'. Standalone — does not call 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。

Interactive code simulation engine that spawns ghost personas to review your code before it ships. Each ghost walks through your code line-by-line from a different failure perspective: The Adversary (race conditions, double-submit, idempotency), The Enterprise Edge (business logic gaps, multi-currency, B2B tax exemptions, locale), Chaos Monkey (timeouts, partial failures, network partitions, OOM). Produces a chaos timeline, structured bug report with severity ratings, and three resolution tiers (quick fix, robust architecture, generated test suite). Use this skill whenever the user mentions code review, PR review, "find bugs", "what could go wrong", "will this break", "is this safe", "stress test", "edge cases", design review, pre-merge check, dry run, chaos test, or wants a second opinion on any code — even if they don't explicitly ask for "ghost personas" or "simulation". Also trigger when someone pastes a code snippet with any question about its correctness or safety.

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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management, making interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Systematic testing methodology for exhaustive branch coverage, edge case identification, and production bug prevention. Use when PR review reveals incomplete test coverage, when tests pass but users report bugs, when code changes break existing features, when verifying all branches and edge cases before merge, when analyzing "it works on my machine" issues, when planning test strategy for new features, or when debugging flaky tests and race conditions.

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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-160 Vol 1 (Engineering Trustworthy Secure Systems) and Vol 2 (Developing Cyber-Resilient Systems). Use for systems security engineering (SSE): the three SSE framework contexts (problem/solution/trustworthiness), the 30+ design principles for trustworthy secure design, trustworthiness and assurance/assurance cases, security across the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 life-cycle process groups, and the Vol 2 cyber-resiliency engineering framework — 4 goals (anticipate/withstand/recover/adapt), objectives, 14 techniques, implementation approaches, and design principles for the APT/adverse-conditions threat model. Bridges systems engineering and the NIST security cluster (CSF/SSDF/RMF). Does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text, nor cover SP 800-53 control catalogs in depth.

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 System Safety Handbook Volume 2 (NASA/SP-2014-612). Use for risk-informed safety cases (RISC), integrated safety analysis (ISA), adequate safety concepts, safety objectives and requirements, acquirer/provider roles, graded safety analysis, claims-evidence-argument structure, SSMP development, and RISC evaluation. Does not cover nuclear or chemical safety domains, occupational health regulations, or NASA-specific programmatic requirements beyond system safety.

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 NASA Digital Engineering Acquisition Framework Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1004). Use for acquiring digital/model-based data under contract: the Data Requirements Description (DRD) instrument and the Appendix A DRD suite (TDP, MBx, CDMP, CSA, CR, FCA/PCA, SDT, EMDAL, REF, MRI); the Data Type 1-5 control scale; SOW/RFP/Cost-Volume contract language and data rights (FAR/DFARS, Table 3 license categories); the Requirements Exchange Format (REF/ReqIF, UUID schema) and Master Records Index; model-based data definition (MBSE, CAD/PMI, M&S credibility, BOM, release-state mapping, PLM); digital data collaboration, the four owned architectures, and interoperability standards (MIL-STD-31000, STEP/ISO 10303, ASME Y14); the four MBE interoperability use cases; and MBE Plan development. Scope is the acquisition and contracting side of digital engineering. Does not reproduce ISO/STEP/ASME/MIL-STD/SAE standard text, and the companion NASA-HDBK-1009A carries the deeper digital-engineering practitioner detail this handbook defers to.

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 Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites.

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 methodology for adversarial thinking — generating attack scenarios, abuse cases, race conditions, and security edge cases against specs and implementations. Produces spec-level gap items, not code-level 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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Analyzes development requirements and generates structured acceptance criteria for AEM Edge Delivery Services (EDS) tasks. Use when the user needs to define acceptance criteria, write requirements, scope work, or create a definition of done for EDS blocks, components, variants, bug fixes, or styling changes. Produces task breakdowns, identifies edge cases, and documents analysis for new blocks, variants, behavior modifications, CSS-only changes, and bug 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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management. Makes interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Improve interface resilience through better error handling, i18n support, text overflow handling, and edge case management, making interfaces robust and production-ready. Use when the user asks to harden, make production-ready, handle edge cases, add error states, or fix overflow and i18n 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。

Analyzes development requirements and generates structured acceptance criteria for AEM Edge Delivery Services (EDS) tasks. Use when the user needs to define acceptance criteria, write requirements, scope work, or create a definition of done for EDS blocks, components, variants, bug fixes, or styling changes. Produces task breakdowns, identifies edge cases, and documents analysis for new blocks, variants, behavior modifications, CSS-only changes, and bug 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。

請求書やフォームなどの規則的なテキストから情報を取り出す処理を、正規表現とLLMで設計し、抽出結果の信頼度が低い項目だけを確認・修正する流れを示します。

• 問題文・選択肢・解答の抽出
• フォームや請求書の抽出処理設計
• 正規表現とLLMを選びたいとき

Produce QA acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for a feature change — golden path, edge cases, error states, performance limits, and explicit pass/fail 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。

Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Runs one or more installed review lenses — adversarial critique, edge cases, verification gaps, structure, prose — and reports triaged findings. Use when, and only when, the user asks you to review a diff, a pull request, or an artifact — code or documents, one or many — and actually says "review"; an explicit skill:bmad-review directive from another skill counts as that ask. A request to act on feedback from an earlier review is a change, not a review. Never invoke this uninvited, including on edits you just made.

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。

Structure a performance review with self-assessment, manager template, and calibration prep. Use when review season kicks off and you need a self-assessment template, writing a manager review for a direct report, prepping rating distributions and promotion cases for calibration, or turning vague feedback into specific behavioral examples.

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。

Soak test protocol for extended play — what to observe and log for slow leaks, fatigue, late-appearing edge cases.

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。